<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:29
!startmeeting F40-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:29
Meeting started at 2024-03-11 16:00:29 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:00:29
The Meeting name is 'F40-blocker-review'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:31
!topic Roll Call
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:00:37
who's around for blocker review fun?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
16:00:47
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:00:48
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:01:08
.hi
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:01:15
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:16
Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:01:23
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:01:24
Daniel Milnes (thebeanogamer) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:52
hi hi
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:02:09
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:10
Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:03:48
how's everyone doing this fine blockery morning
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:04:44
I'm here for the "adamw told you so" edition of blocker review
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:04:50
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:04:52
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:02
Brandon Nielsen: isn't that *every* edition
<@mmartinv:matrix.org>
16:05:32
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:05:34
No Fedora Accounts users have the @mmartinv:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:32
let's do some boilerplate! everyone loves boilerplate
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:34
!topic Introduction
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:38
Why are we here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:41
!info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:43
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:46
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:49
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:52
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:56
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:06:59
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:01
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:04
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:06
!info for Beta, we have:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:13
!info 1 Proposed Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:16
!info 5 Accepted Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:19
!info 1 Accepted 0-day Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:21
!info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:24
!info 8 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:26
!info 6 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:31
!info for Final, we have:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:38
!info 7 Proposed Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:50
woof, that's a lot.
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:07:56
Why *are* we here adamw?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:07:59
oh, two of the final blockers can be handled on ticket votes, so expect 5
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:11
coremodule: to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and we're all out of gum
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:08:21
and mostly out of ass too :P
<@siosm:matrix.org>
16:08:36
👋
<@siosm:matrix.org>
16:08:37
!user
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:08:38
**Usage:** !user <subcommand> [...]
● hello [username] - Return brief information about a Fedora user.
● info [username] - Return brief information about a Fedora user.
● localtime <username> - Returns the current time of the user.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:08:39
!hi
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:08:40
Conan Kudo: Don't worry, I showed up this week
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:08:40
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@siosm:matrix.org>
16:08:46
!heloo
<@siosm:matrix.org>
16:08:49
!hello
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:08:57
Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:09:11
(it's beer in a coffee mug)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:46
only beer?!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:09:56
who wants to secretarialize?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:04
"wants"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:10:23
okay
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:10:26
_needs_
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
16:10:26
I can (try) do that
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:10:29
yeah, *wants*
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:10:42
Conan Kudo: Remind me of that when Flock rolls around; We have some phenomenal cideries around me; I'll load up the trunk.
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:10:42
I will do it, if Aoife doesn't want to...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:43
!info coremodule will secretarialize
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:10:52
ooh
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
16:10:52
Phew 😅
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:10:57
lol
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:11:00
Will do!
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:11:11
never underestimate the bandwidth of a car driving down I-90 with a trunk full of.. wait
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:29
okey dokey, let's get going with:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:32
!topic Proposed Beta blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:40
!topic (2170957) parsec service fails to start on Fedora IoT 37 upgraded from F36 IoT
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:11:43
Hello
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:43
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170957
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:47
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1510
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:50
!info Proposed Blocker, parsec, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:53
hi lruzicka
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:04
so obviously the summary of this bug could use an update, but it sounds like it's still a live problem
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:30
obviously we've shipped the last four releases this way and nobody died, but on the face of it it does sound like a criteria violation applying the upgrade criteria to IoT, yep
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:47
well...maybe it's final, not beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:12:56
"All system services present after installation with one of the release-blocking package sets must start properly, unless they require hardware which is not present. " is a final criterion
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:13:29
+1 Final Blocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:01
(for a reminder, the intent of the upgrade criteria is that upgraded systems have to meet all the other criteria at the appropriate points, so if an upgraded system fails to meet a final criterion, that's a final blocker)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:05
i'd be +1 BetaFE +1 FinalBlocker
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:15:14
I am not kissed anyhow by the IoT, but why do we deal with old versions?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:43
lruzicka: it seems like this affects all IoT upgrades
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:15:56
oh, ok
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:16:01
Strictly by the criteria I feel like it has to be a final blocker, but the fact it has been around for this long without that many people complaining...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:05
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170957#c8
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:16:22
in that case, I am pro-blockery.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:16:22
pbrobinson proposed it as a blocker and submitted f40 updates to fix it, which is a pretty good indicator it affects up to f40 :D
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:17:26
BetaFE +1
FinalBlocker +1
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:17:35
This can be argued at the Go/No-Go to waive the blocker, should we want to.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:17:53
BetaFE +1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:17:55
+1 BetaFE, +1 FinalBlocker
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:18:09
Severus Snape: Finalus Blockerus
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:18:59
+1 BetaFE, +1 FinalBlocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:20:02
proposed #agreed 2170957 - RejectedBlocker (Beta), AcceptedBlocker (Final), AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a blocker for Beta but accepted as a blocker for Final because it violates the "all services must work by default" criterion which is for Final, not Beta. It's accepted as a BetaFE as it would obviously be great to make sure upgrades to Beta do not break a default service
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:20:32
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:20:38
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:21:24
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:21:29
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:21:43
ack
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:22:05
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:30
#agreed 2170957 - RejectedBlocker (Beta), AcceptedBlocker (Final), AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a blocker for Beta but accepted as a blocker for Final because it violates the "all services must work by default" criterion which is for Final, not Beta. It's accepted as a BetaFE as it would obviously be great to make sure upgrades to Beta do not break a default service
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:37
sorry, i really need to quit multitasking during meetigns
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:38
alrights
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:22:40
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:22:42
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:53
that was the only proposed blocker, so on to:
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:22:59
I thought it was next hour 😔
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:05
!topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:27
geraldosimiao: okay, next cycle i will personally send someone to knock on your door ten minutes before the meeting
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:23:35
The other blocker were accepted per online voting?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:44
i am determined to manage just *one time* where the daylight savings transition doesn't confuse anyone at all
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:45
:P
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:23:49
The other blockers were accepted per online voting?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:52
lruzicka: yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:01
i cleared those up just before the meeting
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:24:09
cool :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:30
!topic (2267754) Include GNOME Shell (etc.) 46 rc1 in Fedora 40 Beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:33
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267754
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:37
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1493
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:39
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, NEW, depends on other bugs
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:42
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-2) (+ngompa, -nielsenb, -geraldosimiao)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:36
i would've been ok with this in principle if we'd had an update ready to push last week and it caused no problems, but we didn't, and we don't have a fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268648 AFAIK. so, this seems pretty -1y for this week
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:25:41
If this was last week, I'd probably go with +1 FE, but after we've already slipped, I'd prefer to avoid adding new risks. -1 FE
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:26:21
I just feel like it's an update that can be easily pulled in after release
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:26:37
No need to introduce even more potential turbulence
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:26:43
Souns reasonable, -1FE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:52
the standard reason to include it is that we want the newest shiniest bits on the live image. but that's only if we can get it on a reasonable time frame and we don't already know it has a significant bug.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:28:02
BetaFE -1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:28:07
adamw: Is the "significant bug" a regression from the betas or is it also present on what we'd be shipping today?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:28:37
Sorry, just re-read the ticket.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:44
regression.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:29:13
Yeah, I'm sticking with -1 FE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:29:51
proposed #agreed 2267754 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - we generally are willing to take these if they can land sufficiently early, but in this case, the update is not ready yet and we already know there would be a significant bug if one were prepared today, so it seems clear that this must be rejected
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:30:01
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:30:14
Ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:30:15
ack
<@thebeanogamer:fedora.im>
16:30:19
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:30:24
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:30:24
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:30:53
Just to clear something: after beta release the freeze ends and this get upgraded right?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:54
#agreed 2267754 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - we generally are willing to take these if they can land sufficiently early, but in this case, the update is not ready yet and we already know there would be a significant bug if one were prepared today, so it seems clear that this must be rejected
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:31:01
geraldosimiao: yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:03
yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:04
!topic (2264986) gcc 14.0.1-0.7 break mesa build
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:07
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264986
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:10
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1501
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:13
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gcc, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:31:15
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-2) (+nixuser, +frantisekz, -nielsenb, -geraldosimiao)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:31:31
breaking mesa builds is generally bad
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:31:48
but I guess the lack of criteria for it means the best we can do is FE
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:31:49
gcc smash
<@humaton:fedora.im>
16:31:54
!hello
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:31:54
Tomáš Hrčka (humaton) - he / him / his
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:32:15
I'm not sure there's any purpose to a Freeze Exception here.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:19
i'm a bit unsure on this one
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:32:25
Is gcc even shipped on the media?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:34
generally we'd take a compiler change if we needed to build something *else* with that change to fix an actual problem for users
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:32:49
we don't need to build mesa for beta, aiui
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:33:01
do we need to build anything else that is affected by this bug?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:33:48
I don't see any reason? I don't think there's much overlap of people wanting NVK day 0, and people not willing to update after release
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:33:56
On the one hand, I'm not sure there's any clear value to pulling this in as a Freeze Exception. On the other hand, I'm not sure there's really any risk either.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:34:00
NVK is already going to ship
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:34:09
it was built before GCC broke Mesa
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:34:24
but I guess we're effectively blocked on Mesa updates until it is fixed
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:26
so, that reads as 'no need for an fe' to me?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:34:28
-1 FE from me.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:34:39
BetaFE -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:45
if we turned out to actually need to build mesa for some reason, obviously we could change this
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:34:50
Conan Kudo: It's already fixed and headed for the u-t repo.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:35:04
🤷♂️
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:35:12
technically build only stuff could go into override
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:35:18
Or a side-tag
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:35:19
that's what it's for after all
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:35:29
(yet another reason not to remove overrides)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:35:48
Let's not get into that here. :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:36:09
anyway, I don't see the harm or help of accepting the FE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:11
okey dokey, i think that's enough votes
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:36:13
so BetaFE 0
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:26
oh, i should say, i am also -1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:36:34
so we have total -5 / +2
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:17
proposed #agreed 264986 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as there is no clear rationale for why it's needed. we do not need to build mesa for F40 Beta currently, and the bug does not indicate that any other package affected by this bug currently needs building for Beta.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:37:24
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:37:32
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:37:39
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:37:58
ack
<@humaton:fedora.im>
16:38:27
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:39
#agreed 264986 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as there is no clear rationale for why it's needed. we do not need to build mesa for F40 Beta currently, and the bug does not indicate that any other package affected by this bug currently needs building for Beta.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:44
!topic (2265402) [abrt] gnome-shell: meta_group_new(): gnome-shell killed by SIGABRT
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:47
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2265402
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:50
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1498
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:55
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-shell, POST
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:39:17
so there is no update yet, but a proposed upstream fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:19
so, the fix is in mutter and mutter is on the media
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:36
so at least conceivably you can install workstation then try and install thunderbird (without updating the system first) and hit the bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:48
also you could try installing and using thunderbird on the live system
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:40:00
yes, I think it's a reasonable FE
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:40:04
+1 BetaFE
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:40:16
Important question: can we accept this without also accepting all of the GNOME RC?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:06
sure
<@kparal:matrix.org>
16:41:10
(I tested the fix with the rc version of everything. I haven't tested the patch on top of current stable versions).
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:17
most likely we can backport the patch
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:41:27
if it turns out we can't, then we just don't fix it. it's an fe acceptance, not a blocker
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:42:13
Just making sure. +1 BetaFE
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:42:20
BetaFE +1
<@humaton:fedora.im>
16:42:34
BetaFE +1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:43:32
Are we sure this is distinct from the other gnome-shell crash?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:33
oh god
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:39
i just realized i've been using the wrong darn syntax all meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:54
emergency meeting surgery time! hold on for a bit folks, sorry
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:10
!topic (2170957) parsec service fails to start on Fedora IoT 37 upgraded from F36 IoT
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:44:18
🫡
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:24
!agreed 2170957 - RejectedBlocker (Beta), AcceptedBlocker (Final), AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a blocker for Beta but accepted as a blocker for Final because it violates the "all services must work by default" criterion which is for Final, not Beta. It's accepted as a BetaFE as it would obviously be great to make sure upgrades to Beta do not break a default service
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:38
!topic (2267754) Include GNOME Shell (etc.) 46 rc1 in Fedora 40 Beta
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:52
!agreed 2267754 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - we generally are willing to take these if they can land sufficiently early, but in this case, the update is not ready yet and we already know there would be a significant bug if one were prepared today, so it seems clear that this must be rejected
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:01
!topic (2264986) gcc 14.0.1-0.7 break mesa build
✅
1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:06
oh good lord
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:08
!undo
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:14
!topic (2264986) gcc 14.0.1-0.7 break mesa build
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:32
aaand i dunno what that undo applied to. meetbot 3.0 is going great
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:35
anyhoo
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:49
!agreed 264986 - RejectedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as there is no clear rationale for why it's needed. we do not need to build mesa for F40 Beta currently, and the bug does not indicate that any other package affected by this bug currently needs building for Beta.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:01
!topic (2265402) [abrt] gnome-shell: meta_group_new(): gnome-shell killed by SIGABRT
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:41
okay, we're back. coremodule please be careful about 2267754 in case that undo undid the agreement on that one'
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
16:46:49
roger
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:46:57
undo is not implemented
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:47:03
so it does nothing
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:47:36
Same as every time I try to <Ctrl>-<z> in real life
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:47:42
aha, okay. well, that's probably fine, then
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:48:54
proposed !agreed 2265402 - AccepteedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it could affect folks trying to run Thunderbird from the live session, or immediately after install and without first updating mutter. This will only be fixed if the fix can be backported in an isolated fashion on top of 46-beta and tested
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:50:03
you may now resume acking!
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:50:23
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:50:52
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:50:56
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:51:01
ack
<@humaton:fedora.im>
16:51:10
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:17
!agreed 2265402 - AccepteedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it could affect folks trying to run Thunderbird from the live session, or immediately after install and without first updating mutter. This will only be fixed if the fix can be backported in an isolated fashion on top of 46-beta and tested
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
16:51:25
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:33
!topic (2268583) [abrt] gnome-software: gtk_widget_get_parent_muxer.constprop.0(): gnome-software killed by SIGSEGV
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:37
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268583
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:39
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1513
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:51:42
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gtk4, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:52:53
in theory i'm +1 to fixing gtk crashes, it's a bit unfortunate this is apparently not filed as an update yet, though
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:52:58
so we don't have much testing with it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:53:26
oh, it's in the RC update. which we can't take because of the x event filter thing. sigh
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:54:25
It can't be split into a separate update?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:54:31
So the fix will come with the rc?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:55:21
if Gnome Software doesn't crash :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:39
Stephen Gallagher: well, it would be a bit awkward now
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:09
it could have been done much more easily *before* the rc update was created (assuming there's no actual it-needs-to-go-with-rc-versioned-other-components issue)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:56:43
but now we'd need to, what, bump it to -2 and build it against current stable, submit an update for that, then bump it to -3 and build it against the rc side tag and update the rc update. not impossible, but a bit silly
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:57:22
i mean, i guess i could still vote +1 in theory, with the caveat that we don't approve pulling in the whole rc to fix this, only a separate gtk-only fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:57:46
and we'd want to have some decent testing before merging it. which would practically speaking probably mean not pulling it if we manage to do a candidate today or tomorrow
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:59:07
I'm not following. Why would we need to bump it? Isn't gtk4 kind of at the bottom of the dependency pile? We can't just pull out the one package into its own Bodhi update?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:59:57
bodhi can't do that
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:00:09
it's in a side tag, IIRC
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:00:12
... of course it can't. *sigh*
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:00:14
so that's a mess to pull apart
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:00:25
and splitting updates is not possible
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:25
and yeah, it can't do it *even harder* when side tags are involved
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:00:26
:P
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:00:52
it's kind of annoying that we can't, but 😩
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:04
well...it might actually be possible to do it with an awful lot of ugly hackery...but i haven't tried
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:01:05
ehh, couldn't we just directly tag it to stable then?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:01:13
!hello
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:01:15
František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:01:20
freakin time zones..
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:01:31
you like pain, don't you?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:01:37
(what i'm thinking of is, you could create a new side tag update for a random sacrificial package, move the gtk4 update to that side tag, drop the sacrificial package from the side tag, then regenerate both side tag updates)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:01:43
Let's not get personal. But yes.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:01:48
Yeah, me too got confused
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:01:50
bodhi will freak out in those circumstances
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:02:02
lol
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:02:18
bodhi will get confused with an update that has a build that has been manually pushed to stable
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:02:31
it's happened a couple of times where the update gets into a bad state because of it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:35
yeah, we avoid doing that
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:02:44
I'm inclined to say stick with the devil we know, and ship a crashy gnome-software
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:02:45
Gotta run to another meeting, sorry. WIll check the backlog later
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:02:51
thanks stephen
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:08
i'm fine with my notional +1 here, and let maintainers figure out if they want to try isolating gtk4 somehow
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:03:39
the issue, considered outside of the practicalities with the update, certainly feels reasonably FE-worthy
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:03:41
I guess I'm okay with letting them try
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:03:56
if they come up with a way, someone write it down
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:04:02
+1 BetaFE
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:04:08
+1 BetaFE
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:04:24
Isn't this for Final?
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:04:24
BetaFE +1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:04:26
+1 BetaFE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:45
we're on beta FEs atm
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:04:56
Fair enough
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:04:59
BetaFE +1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:05:03
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:21
proposed !agreed 2268583 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the basis that fixing crashes in default-installed apps is definitely desirable for Beta. we note that we cannot accept the whole of GNOME 46 RC to fix this (the new gtk4 is currently bundled in that update); either gtk4 would have to be split out from that update somehow, or the xevent issue would have to be resolved and the GNOME 46 RC FE ticket re-voted (probably only after another slip)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:06:36
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:06:40
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:06:40
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:06:43
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:06:46
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:06:52
!agreed 2268583 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted on the basis that fixing crashes in default-installed apps is definitely desirable for Beta. we note that we cannot accept the whole of GNOME 46 RC to fix this (the new gtk4 is currently bundled in that update); either gtk4 would have to be split out from that update somehow, or the xevent issue would have to be resolved and the GNOME 46 RC FE ticket re-voted (probably only after another slip)
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:06:53
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:01
!topic (2268951) Ship updated kiwi to enable s390x Fedora Cloud image builds
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:03
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268951
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:05
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1511
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:08
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kiwi, MODIFIED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:11
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+0,0,-1) (-nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:07:32
+1 for me. i'm not sure we're realistically going to be able to include the kiwi builds unfortunately, but this makes it easier to try, and can't possibly hurt anything else (as it's an update to kiwi itself)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:07:51
everything needed to land the whole Change will be ready once this is in
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:07:57
+1 BetaFE
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:08:15
the pungi fixes are awaiting merge, the pungi-fedora PR and kiwi-descriptions PR can be merged after this
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:08:51
Well, if it can't _possibly_ hurt anything
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:08:53
BetaFE +1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:08:56
BetaFE +1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:09:02
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:07
i really shouldn't say that, but i'm pretty sure. :P
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:09:25
BetaFE +1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:09:26
we've worked really hard to validate things as safely as possible
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:35
proposed !agreed 2268951 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is useful/needed for the attempt to land https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KiwiBuiltCloudImages , and as it's an update to kiwi itself it can't break anything else
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:10:42
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:10:43
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:10:44
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:10:50
ack
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:10:55
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:11:00
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:11:11
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:11:23
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:15:11
Anymore tickets?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:17
sorry
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:23
i'm off mulittasking again
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:25
yes, there are more tickets
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:29
!agreed 2268951 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is useful/needed for the attempt to land https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KiwiBuiltCloudImages , and as it's an update to kiwi itself it can't break anything else
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:35
!topic (2268704) Plugin doesn't work on KDE Plasma 6
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:38
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268704
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:40
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1507
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:43
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, plasma-wallpapers-dynamic, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:45
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:18:12
It feels pretty low risk to me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:56
yeah, it does, but otoh it doesn't seem like being 0-day would hurt it much either
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:57
ehhh
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:19:17
The ticket mentions broken updates ... ?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:19:25
It read to me like it doesn't come back after update?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:19:31
if you do a system upgrade right now, you wind up with a broken plasma if you have this installed
<@timaeos:matrix.nexaeos.io>
17:19:33
(for those who have dynamic enabled, it caused wallpaper to break to a solid black color)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:19:37
We should make upgrades flawless, I feel
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:19:51
well, partly broken plasma
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:20:22
I do not think that falling back to black is that severe, are there any other breakages?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:20:26
timaeos reported it to me, which is how I got it fixed
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:38
i guess that's worth a +1 to me
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:20:44
lruzicka: I noticed that the wallpaper settings controls glitch out, but beyond that not too much more
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:20:58
given it seems pretty low-risk since it only changes the affected plugin, if you don't have the plugin, you can't be broken...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:14
hence the FE and not blocker :)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:21:22
I would also be willing to go +1 FE
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:24
I'm hoping this gets integrated into plasma proper at some point
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:24
(with the usual note that this fixes upgrades that happen before we do the 0-day update push)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:21:38
it's worth nothing that upgrading to F40 KDE is kinda a meme in certain weird corners of the internet atm, to get Plasma 6
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:47
yup
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:22:02
apparently our KDE experience is good according to The Internet(tm)
<@farchord:matrix.org>
17:22:17
aka The Interwebz
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:37
so we have +3 at this point i suppose, any other votes?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:22:43
BetaFE +1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:22:49
BetaFE +1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:22:57
BetaFE +1
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:23:11
+1 Beta FE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:23:54
proposed !agreed 2268704 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted to fix the upgrade experience for folks with this plugin installed before the 0-day update push. It's not a very critical problem, but it's also a low-risk fix, and F40 KDE is getting some public attention ATM so we'd like the experience to be as smooth as possible for early jumpers
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:23:59
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:24:04
ack
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:24:11
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:15
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:24:43
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:45
!agreed 2268704 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted to fix the upgrade experience for folks with this plugin installed before the 0-day update push. It's not a very critical problem, but it's also a low-risk fix, and F40 KDE is getting some public attention ATM so we'd like the experience to be as smooth as possible for early jumpers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:53
!topic (2268497) F40 FE: KDE Plasma 6.0.1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:55
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268497
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:25:58
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1502
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:00
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, plasma-workspace, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:02
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,1,-1) (+frantisekz, +ngompa, geraldosimiao, -nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:40
so kinda like the gnome one, in theory i'd wanna say +1 but it seems too late for a compose this week at least
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:47
at least we don't know about any critical bugs in this one?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:27:23
No, it seems to be fine and passing tests
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:27:41
There's the icon one?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:27:58
Switching colors
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:28:00
as a new bug in 6.0.1?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:28:19
Yeah, don't?
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:28:56
I don't think so
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:29:36
I know it exists in 6.0 and there's a partial fix in 6.0.1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:29:55
so it's not _new_
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:31:09
Ok then
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:31:55
so...i guess i'd want to either punt this, or say "+1, but not for a candidate targeting this thursday"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:32:07
if we decide we can't release this week it'd seem reasonable to pull it in
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:32:17
that sounds fine for me
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:32:38
I can go to +1 now
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:32:50
Changing my previous vote
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:32:54
I'd be more strongly advocating for yoloing this in for final as that iso would be used by users for a few months, but beta is gonna be dead in a few weeks anyway
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:33:47
That's a good point.
But still, tomorrow we get 6.0.2
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:33:49
I guess if people are saying it's not breaking stuff, I'm happy to wait a week and pull if feasible
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:34:19
if we wait a week, then we'll probably refresh the side tag with 6.0.2
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:26
shall we say the FE also applies to an 6.0.2 update if built in an appropriate timeframe?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:34:34
yeah
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:34:36
I'd be +1 for that
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:34:43
Yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:43
Conan Kudo: in the 'we slip and merge this' scenario, i would want to be merging it on *friday*
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:34:44
I'd be +1 for that too
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:47
is that doable?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:34:47
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:53
(for 6.0.2?)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:34:55
6.0.2 by then, yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:58
okay
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:35:25
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:35:30
proposed !agreed 268497 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted, but with the caveat that we only intend to pull it in if there's another slip. it's too risky to pull it in now for something we intend to sign off on Thursday. This also applies to a 6.0.2 build, if it is ready by Friday (the last day we would want to land this if we were targeting next Thursday)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:35:38
ack
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:35:45
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:35:49
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:35:56
!agreed 268497 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted, but with the caveat that we only intend to pull it in if there's another slip. it's too risky to pull it in now for something we intend to sign off on Thursday. This also applies to a 6.0.2 build, if it is ready by Friday (the last day we would want to land this if we were targeting next Thursday)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:05
okay, last proposed fe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:08
!topic (2264975) F40FailsToInstall: visidata
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:10
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264975
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:15
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1509
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:18
!info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, visidata, ON_QA, depends on other bugs
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:20
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+frantisekz, +nielsenb)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:36:33
fti as always...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:49
sure, beta FTI, +1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:18
+1
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:37:27
BetaFE +1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:37:48
BetaFE +1
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:37:57
BetaFE +1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:14
proposed !agreed 2264975 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as we usually accept straightforward FTI fixes as Beta FE to smooth the upgrade process for early upgraders
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:38:27
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:38:31
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:38:33
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:39:00
!agreed 2264975 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as we usually accept straightforward FTI fixes as Beta FE to smooth the upgrade process for early upgraders
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:39:13
!topic Accepted Blocker review
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:39:23
since we're trying to ship, let's go through the accepted blockers quickly...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:39:32
the executive summary is simple: we're waiting on ARM.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:27
!info we are basically waiting on ARM. the outstanding unaddressed blockers are 2267968 and 2247873 which are both ARM issues, 2242759 which is another old ARM (effectively) issue we kinda forgot about, and the two shim blockers, 2113005 and 2259264
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:40:43
!info I would assume we will waive the shim blockers if a shim build is still not ready in time, so...we're waiting on ARM
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:41:14
i have been bugging peter for updates on the ARM blockers, but the timeframe has been slipping. originally he intended to have them both fixed by the weekend, but...they aren't.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:41:20
i'm worried we have a process/resource mismatch here.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:41:27
I'm pretty sure there's gotta be a joke in here somewhere about "waiving our ARMs"...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:42:14
i did ping peter about this meeting but i guess he's not around
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:42:23
ARM always postponed
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:42:41
Broken ARMs?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:42:48
And the shim one, it's like a meme now...
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:43:51
These waives are delaying the purchase of my SBC
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:57
i was really hoping that was going to be finally ready this time :|
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:44:16
still, I don't know that we can do anything except flag up the issues
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:44:21
*notes fesco people in the room*
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:45:21
What do you want FESCo to do? I'm not sure we have the necessary clout to extend days to 26 hours.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:08
We're getting too attached to our arms.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:46:12
good question!
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:13
😊
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:46:30
i mean, it's just this awkward nexus that we say arm is release blocking and these are the release blocking platforms and then there are bugs in them and they don't get fixed in time
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:46:35
and an awful lot of it runs through peter
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:47:06
are you asking us to consider downgrading them?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:48:04
Is Peter really the only one who can do this work in Fedora?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:48:13
genuine question - not loaded
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:20
Stephen Gallagher: also, and this is important, does fesco have the clout to force universal acceptance of Swatch Internet Time
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:57
Aoife Moloney: i think it's pretty close to that, unfortunately. at least he's the only one with the necessary knowledge, commit access, and at least *some* time dedicated to it, that i know of.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:49:08
Aoife Moloney: I think he's the only one paid to work on it, yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:49:25
Conan Kudo: maybe? or somehow trying to get more people? I really don't know, I just know it feels like a problem
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:49:36
I was afraid that would be the answer. Ok thanks for the context
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:50:10
i guess if fedora made some *noise* about not being able to keep arm as release blocking it might shake loose some resources
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:50:15
adamw, Conan Kudo I think the best we might be able to do is start the conversation about downgrading and see if anyone steps up.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:50:15
that'd be the optimistic scenario
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:50:27
That's... kind of what happened with KDE a decade aho.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:50:31
That's... kind of what happened with KDE a decade ago.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:50:46
yes
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:51:27
It's a really hard case to make though
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:51:36
You're basically carrying water for the ARM vendors
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:52:01
Pi is about as friendly as it gets, and even they lag on upstreaming things
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:52:13
Brandon Nielsen: I'm not sure that's a universally-understood metaphor. Could you translate?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:52:30
Doing work for those who should probably do it on their own
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:52:42
Detach the arms
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
17:52:43
And they make it hard to do, to boot
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
17:53:35
I know Peter is working on it now, unfortunately I don't have an eta on a fix. It's a slow process
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:46
pwhalen of course is the other person who helps out a lot in this area, but i think he has even less dedicated time than peter and doesn't have all the same commit access, is that right?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:54:42
yes, indeed...
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:55:20
Oh my, this is a metaphor paradise 😄
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
17:55:23
adamwright. I believe one of the issues is now fixed, just the DTB one remains? So we have display, just the rpi400 isn't working as of now
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:55:31
And the shim(s).
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:52
pwhalen: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247873 still shows as ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:00
that's the Jetson Nano DTB issue
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
17:56:34
RIght.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:54
and then we should do *something* about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2242759 , even if it's just saying "oops we forgot and this is really hard, it's waived/rejected"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:57:22
pwhalen: and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267968 is the pi 400 issue, currently assigned to bcm283x-firmware
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:57:25
I can certainly try and get movement on the shim-unsigned-aarch64 source. I believe the one we're shipping in Rocky is based (on) the Fedora branch. so I need to close the loop on contributing that up (if needed).
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:58:23
that one's in the 'we'll waive it if needed' bucket, i think, but of course it would be great if we could actually get a new signed shim. at least for final.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:58:37
we don't even have an x86_64 one yet, though. sigh
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:03
!info we are worried that there's a pattern indicating we don't have sufficient ability to fix ARM blockers in a timely fashion, but unsure what to do about this. we've informally noted it to FESCo in this meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:27
!topic Open floor
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:37
any other business? i guess we don't have time for final blockers, please vote in-ticket
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:01:02
!fesco 3178
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:02
**fesco #3178** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3178):**Consider relegating ARM to non-blocking status**
● **Opened:** 20 seconds ago by sgallagh
● **Last Updated:** Never
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:01:23
Would that include the ARM cloud images?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:46
if an arch is not blocking none of its images can be blocking, indeed
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:01:54
Ugh
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:06
but i guess we could also say 'no more hardware blocking but virt/cloud is blocking'
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:02:22
non-blocking does not mean not shipped either.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:23
that would certainly cover a lot of the issue, i don't think i recall a case where we slipped on virt/cloud functionality
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:27
of course
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:02:48
Anyway, that ticket is for FESCo to consider the situation.
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:03:13
Perhaps non-blocking desktop images would be more appropriate than the arch completely?
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:03:41
Or SBC's, rather only blocking on enterprise.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:53
i think all of that should be up for discussion for sure
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:04:43
Sorry, I didn't intend to extend the meeting. Just noting that I filed the ticket so it didn't get overlooked
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:05:03
Do you think it's realistic to say we can get a rc iso in a couple of days?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:15
it entirely depends on the arm fixes, i would say
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:25
one option we have is to build a candidate tomorrow regardless of whether those are fixed
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:36
and then we can start up the ol' waiver discussion at the go/no-go
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:53
(if they aren't)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:06:56
I'd be all for that, personally
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:07:09
Yeah, we can start doing release validation
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:19
you can do release validation already!
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:07:20
On the arch working
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:32
this is an important point for quality folks, *please* don't wait for a candidate to do validation testing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:45
there are always matrices for the nightlies and it is super useful to have the tests all run on those
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:08:39
last week things were really too chaotic to even get a candidate but we're in a calmer situation now, so i think we can do that.
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:09:01
For arm, Raspberry Pi testing should be possible on the RPi3/4. Just not the 400.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:09:37
And a graphical desktop is only expected to work on the 4, right?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:09:52
I'd say even on 3
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:10:02
I believe so based on ram requirements
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:10:08
ahh
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:10:18
That was not the case when I asked about Gnome last release cycle, which is why I'm asking again
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:10:42
My poor 3
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:10:57
I think Gnome recommends more than 1G now/
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
18:11:02
Yeah
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:11:09
I think Gnome recommends more than 1G now?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:11:44
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/latest/release-notes/welcome/Hardware_Overview/ says minimum 2GB (that's usually read as applying to Workstation)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:12:00
so if pi 3 is less than 2GB i think it's reasonable to say expecting gnome to work is pretty borderline
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:12:17
we used to make xfce or something the default arm desktop because of this, but we changed that a long time ago...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:12:49
okay, we're a bit over time and into details, so...shall we wind up?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:14:01
Yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:17:17
thanks for coming, folks!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:17:19
!endmeeting