2024-03-11 16:00:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !startmeeting F40-blocker-review
2024-03-11 16:00:29 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-03-11 16:00:29 UTC
2024-03-11 16:00:29 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'F40-blocker-review'
2024-03-11 16:00:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2024-03-11 16:00:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who's around for blocker review fun?
2024-03-11 16:00:47 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !hi
2024-03-11 16:00:48 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
2024-03-11 16:01:08 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> .hi
2024-03-11 16:01:15 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> !hi
2024-03-11 16:01:16 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
2024-03-11 16:01:23 <@thebeanogamer:fedora.im> !hi
2024-03-11 16:01:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Daniel Milnes (thebeanogamer) - he / him / his
2024-03-11 16:01:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi hi
2024-03-11 16:02:09 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !hi
2024-03-11 16:02:10 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
2024-03-11 16:03:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> how's everyone doing this fine blockery morning
2024-03-11 16:04:44 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm here for the "adamw told you so" edition of blocker review
2024-03-11 16:04:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-03-11 16:04:52 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-03-11 16:05:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen: isn't that *every* edition
2024-03-11 16:05:32 <@mmartinv:matrix.org> !hi
2024-03-11 16:05:34 <@zodbot:fedora.im> No Fedora Accounts users have the @mmartinv:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
2024-03-11 16:06:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> let's do some boilerplate! everyone loves boilerplate
2024-03-11 16:06:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Introduction
2024-03-11 16:06:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Why are we here?
2024-03-11 16:06:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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.
2024-03-11 16:06:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info We'll be following the process outlined at:
2024-03-11 16:06:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
2024-03-11 16:06:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The bugs up for review today are available at:
2024-03-11 16:06:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
2024-03-11 16:06:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
2024-03-11 16:06:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
2024-03-11 16:07:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria
2024-03-11 16:07:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria
2024-03-11 16:07:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Beta, we have:
2024-03-11 16:07:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Proposed Blockers
2024-03-11 16:07:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 5 Accepted Blockers
2024-03-11 16:07:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Accepted 0-day Blockers
2024-03-11 16:07:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
2024-03-11 16:07:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 8 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
2024-03-11 16:07:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 6 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
2024-03-11 16:07:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info for Final, we have:
2024-03-11 16:07:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info 7 Proposed Blockers
2024-03-11 16:07:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> woof, that's a lot.
2024-03-11 16:07:56 <@coremodule:fedora.im> Why *are* we here adamw?
2024-03-11 16:07:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, two of the final blockers can be handled on ticket votes, so expect 5
2024-03-11 16:08:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> coremodule: to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and we're all out of gum
2024-03-11 16:08:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and mostly out of ass too :P
2024-03-11 16:08:36 <@siosm:matrix.org> 👋
2024-03-11 16:08:37 <@siosm:matrix.org> !user
2024-03-11 16:08:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **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.
2024-03-11 16:08:39 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi 
2024-03-11 16:08:40 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Don't worry, I showed up this week
2024-03-11 16:08:40 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
2024-03-11 16:08:46 <@siosm:matrix.org> !heloo
2024-03-11 16:08:49 <@siosm:matrix.org> !hello
2024-03-11 16:08:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his
2024-03-11 16:09:11 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> (it's beer in a coffee mug)
2024-03-11 16:09:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> only beer?!
2024-03-11 16:09:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who wants to secretarialize?
2024-03-11 16:10:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> "wants"
2024-03-11 16:10:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> okay
2024-03-11 16:10:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> _needs_
2024-03-11 16:10:26 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I can (try) do that 
2024-03-11 16:10:29 <@coremodule:fedora.im> yeah, *wants*
2024-03-11 16:10:42 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Remind me of that when Flock rolls around; We have some phenomenal cideries around me; I'll load up the trunk.
2024-03-11 16:10:42 <@coremodule:fedora.im> I will do it, if Aoife doesn't want to...
2024-03-11 16:10:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info coremodule will secretarialize
2024-03-11 16:10:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ooh
2024-03-11 16:10:52 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Phew 😅
2024-03-11 16:10:57 <@coremodule:fedora.im> lol
2024-03-11 16:11:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Will do!
2024-03-11 16:11:11 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> never underestimate the bandwidth of a car driving down I-90 with a trunk full of.. wait
2024-03-11 16:11:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okey dokey, let's get going with:
2024-03-11 16:11:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta blockers
2024-03-11 16:11:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2170957) parsec service fails to start on Fedora IoT 37 upgraded from F36 IoT
2024-03-11 16:11:43 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Hello
2024-03-11 16:11:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170957
2024-03-11 16:11:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1510
2024-03-11 16:11:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Blocker, parsec, ON_QA
2024-03-11 16:11:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi lruzicka
2024-03-11 16:12:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so obviously the summary of this bug could use an update, but it sounds like it's still a live problem
2024-03-11 16:12:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:12:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well...maybe it's final, not beta
2024-03-11 16:12:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> "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
2024-03-11 16:13:29 <@coremodule:fedora.im> +1 Final Blocker
2024-03-11 16:14:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (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)
2024-03-11 16:15:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'd be +1 BetaFE +1 FinalBlocker
2024-03-11 16:15:14 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I am not kissed anyhow by the IoT, but why do we deal with old versions?
2024-03-11 16:15:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: it seems like this affects all IoT upgrades
2024-03-11 16:15:56 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> oh, ok
2024-03-11 16:16:01 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> 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...
2024-03-11 16:16:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170957#c8
2024-03-11 16:16:22 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> in that case, I am pro-blockery.
2024-03-11 16:16:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:17:26 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
FinalBlocker +1
2024-03-11 16:17:35 <@coremodule:fedora.im> This can be argued at the Go/No-Go to waive the blocker, should we want to.
2024-03-11 16:17:53 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> BetaFE +1

2024-03-11 16:17:55 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> +1 BetaFE, +1 FinalBlocker
2024-03-11 16:18:09 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Severus Snape: Finalus Blockerus
2024-03-11 16:18:59 <@thebeanogamer:fedora.im> +1 BetaFE, +1 FinalBlocker
2024-03-11 16:20:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:20:32 <@coremodule:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:20:38 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 16:21:24 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:21:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 16:21:43 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:22:05 <@thebeanogamer:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:22:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> #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
2024-03-11 16:22:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sorry, i really need to quit multitasking during meetigns
2024-03-11 16:22:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> alrights
2024-03-11 16:22:40 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> !hi
2024-03-11 16:22:42 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
2024-03-11 16:22:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that was the only proposed blocker, so on to:
2024-03-11 16:22:59 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I thought it was next hour 😔
2024-03-11 16:23:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Proposed Beta freeze exceptions
2024-03-11 16:23:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> geraldosimiao: okay, next cycle i will personally send someone to knock on your door ten minutes before the meeting
2024-03-11 16:23:35 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> The other blocker were accepted per online voting?
2024-03-11 16:23:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i am determined to manage just *one time* where the daylight savings transition doesn't confuse anyone at all
2024-03-11 16:23:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> :P
2024-03-11 16:23:49 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> The other blockers were accepted per online voting?
2024-03-11 16:23:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> lruzicka: yes
2024-03-11 16:24:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i cleared those up just before the meeting
2024-03-11 16:24:09 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> cool :D
2024-03-11 16:24:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2267754) Include GNOME Shell (etc.) 46 rc1 in Fedora 40 Beta
2024-03-11 16:24:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267754
2024-03-11 16:24:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1493
2024-03-11 16:24:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, NEW, depends on other bugs 
2024-03-11 16:24:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-2) (+ngompa, -nielsenb, -geraldosimiao)
2024-03-11 16:25:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:25:41 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:26:21 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I just feel like it's an update that can be easily pulled in after release
2024-03-11 16:26:37 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> No need to introduce even more potential turbulence
2024-03-11 16:26:43 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> Souns reasonable, -1FE
2024-03-11 16:26:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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.
2024-03-11 16:28:02 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE -1
2024-03-11 16:28:07 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: Is the "significant bug" a regression from the betas or is it also present on what we'd be shipping today?
2024-03-11 16:28:37 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Sorry, just re-read the ticket.
2024-03-11 16:28:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> regression.
2024-03-11 16:29:13 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Yeah, I'm sticking with -1 FE
2024-03-11 16:29:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:30:01 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:30:14 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ack 
2024-03-11 16:30:15 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 16:30:19 <@thebeanogamer:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:30:24 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:30:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 16:30:53 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Just to clear something: after beta release the freeze ends and this get upgraded right? 
2024-03-11 16:30:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> #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
2024-03-11 16:31:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> geraldosimiao: yes
2024-03-11 16:31:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes
2024-03-11 16:31:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2264986) gcc 14.0.1-0.7 break mesa build
2024-03-11 16:31:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264986
2024-03-11 16:31:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1501
2024-03-11 16:31:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gcc, ON_QA
2024-03-11 16:31:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-2) (+nixuser, +frantisekz, -nielsenb, -geraldosimiao)
2024-03-11 16:31:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> breaking mesa builds is generally bad
2024-03-11 16:31:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but I guess the lack of criteria for it means the best we can do is FE
2024-03-11 16:31:49 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> gcc smash
2024-03-11 16:31:54 <@humaton:fedora.im> !hello
2024-03-11 16:31:54 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Tomáš Hrčka (humaton) - he / him / his
2024-03-11 16:32:15 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'm not sure there's any purpose to a Freeze Exception here.
2024-03-11 16:32:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm a bit unsure on this one
2024-03-11 16:32:25 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Is gcc even shipped on the media?
2024-03-11 16:32:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> generally we'd take a compiler change if we needed to build something *else* with that change to fix an actual problem for users
2024-03-11 16:32:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we don't need to build mesa for beta, aiui
2024-03-11 16:33:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> do we need to build anything else that is affected by this bug?
2024-03-11 16:33:48 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:33:56 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 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.
2024-03-11 16:34:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> NVK is already going to ship
2024-03-11 16:34:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it was built before GCC broke Mesa
2024-03-11 16:34:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but I guess we're effectively blocked on Mesa updates until it is fixed
2024-03-11 16:34:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, that reads as 'no need for an fe' to me?
2024-03-11 16:34:28 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> -1 FE from me.
2024-03-11 16:34:39 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE -1
2024-03-11 16:34:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if we turned out to actually need to build mesa for some reason, obviously we could change this
2024-03-11 16:34:50 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: It's already fixed and headed for the u-t repo.
2024-03-11 16:35:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 🤷‍♂️
2024-03-11 16:35:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> technically build only stuff could go into override
2024-03-11 16:35:18 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Or a side-tag
2024-03-11 16:35:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's what it's for after all
2024-03-11 16:35:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (yet another reason not to remove overrides)
2024-03-11 16:35:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Let's not get into that here. :)
2024-03-11 16:36:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> anyway, I don't see the harm or help of accepting the FE
2024-03-11 16:36:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okey dokey, i think that's enough votes
2024-03-11 16:36:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so BetaFE 0
2024-03-11 16:36:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, i should say, i am also -1
2024-03-11 16:36:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we have total -5 / +2
2024-03-11 16:37:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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.
2024-03-11 16:37:24 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:37:32 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 16:37:39 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:37:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 16:38:27 <@humaton:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:38:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> #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.
2024-03-11 16:38:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2265402) [abrt] gnome-shell: meta_group_new(): gnome-shell killed by SIGABRT
2024-03-11 16:38:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2265402
2024-03-11 16:38:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1498
2024-03-11 16:38:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-shell, POST
2024-03-11 16:39:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so there is no update yet, but a proposed upstream fix
2024-03-11 16:39:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, the fix is in mutter and mutter is on the media
2024-03-11 16:39:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so at least conceivably you can install workstation then try and install thunderbird (without updating the system first) and hit the bug
2024-03-11 16:39:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> also you could try installing and using thunderbird on the live system
2024-03-11 16:40:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes, I think it's a reasonable FE
2024-03-11 16:40:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 BetaFE
2024-03-11 16:40:16 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Important question: can we accept this without also accepting all of the GNOME RC?
2024-03-11 16:41:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure
2024-03-11 16:41:10 <@kparal:matrix.org> (I tested the fix with the rc version of everything. I haven't tested the patch on top of current stable versions).
2024-03-11 16:41:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> most likely we can backport the patch
2024-03-11 16:41:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if it turns out we can't, then we just don't fix it. it's an fe acceptance, not a blocker
2024-03-11 16:42:13 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Just making sure. +1 BetaFE
2024-03-11 16:42:20 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 16:42:34 <@humaton:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 16:43:32 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Are we sure this is distinct from the other gnome-shell crash?
2024-03-11 16:43:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh god
2024-03-11 16:43:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i just realized i've been using the wrong darn syntax all meeting
2024-03-11 16:43:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> emergency meeting surgery time! hold on for a bit folks, sorry
2024-03-11 16:44:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2170957) parsec service fails to start on Fedora IoT 37 upgraded from F36 IoT
2024-03-11 16:44:18 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> 🫡
2024-03-11 16:44:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2024-03-11 16:44:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2267754) Include GNOME Shell (etc.) 46 rc1 in Fedora 40 Beta
2024-03-11 16:44:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2024-03-11 16:45:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2264986) gcc 14.0.1-0.7 break mesa build
✅
1

2024-03-11 16:45:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh good lord
2024-03-11 16:45:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !undo
2024-03-11 16:45:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2264986) gcc 14.0.1-0.7 break mesa build
2024-03-11 16:45:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> aaand i dunno what that undo applied to. meetbot 3.0 is going great
2024-03-11 16:45:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> anyhoo
2024-03-11 16:45:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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.
2024-03-11 16:46:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2265402) [abrt] gnome-shell: meta_group_new(): gnome-shell killed by SIGABRT
2024-03-11 16:46:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, we're back. coremodule please be careful about 2267754 in case that undo undid the agreement on that one'
2024-03-11 16:46:49 <@coremodule:fedora.im> roger
2024-03-11 16:46:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> undo is not implemented
2024-03-11 16:47:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so it does nothing
2024-03-11 16:47:36 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Same as every time I try to <Ctrl>-<z> in real life
2024-03-11 16:47:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> aha, okay. well, that's probably fine, then
2024-03-11 16:48:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:50:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you may now resume acking!
2024-03-11 16:50:23 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 16:50:52 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:50:56 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 16:51:01 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:51:10 <@humaton:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 16:51:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2024-03-11 16:51:25 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 16:51:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2268583) [abrt] gnome-software: gtk_widget_get_parent_muxer.constprop.0(): gnome-software killed by SIGSEGV
2024-03-11 16:51:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268583
2024-03-11 16:51:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1513
2024-03-11 16:51:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gtk4, NEW
2024-03-11 16:52:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> in theory i'm +1 to fixing gtk crashes, it's a bit unfortunate this is apparently not filed as an update yet, though
2024-03-11 16:52:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we don't have much testing with it
2024-03-11 16:53:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, it's in the RC update. which we can't take because of the x event filter thing. sigh
2024-03-11 16:54:25 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> It can't be split into a separate update?
2024-03-11 16:54:31 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> So the fix will come with the rc? 
2024-03-11 16:55:21 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> if Gnome Software doesn't crash :D
2024-03-11 16:55:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: well, it would be a bit awkward now
2024-03-11 16:56:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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)
2024-03-11 16:56:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:57:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:57:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 16:59:07 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 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?
2024-03-11 16:59:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> bodhi can't do that
2024-03-11 17:00:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's in a side tag, IIRC
2024-03-11 17:00:12 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ... of course it can't. *sigh*
2024-03-11 17:00:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so that's a mess to pull apart
2024-03-11 17:00:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and splitting updates is not possible
2024-03-11 17:00:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and yeah, it can't do it *even harder* when side tags are involved
2024-03-11 17:00:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> :P
2024-03-11 17:00:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's kind of annoying that we can't, but 😩
2024-03-11 17:01:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well...it might actually be possible to do it with an awful lot of ugly hackery...but i haven't tried
2024-03-11 17:01:05 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ehh, couldn't we just directly tag it to stable then?
2024-03-11 17:01:13 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> !hello
2024-03-11 17:01:15 <@zodbot:fedora.im> František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
2024-03-11 17:01:20 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> freakin time zones..
2024-03-11 17:01:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> you like pain, don't you?
2024-03-11 17:01:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (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)
2024-03-11 17:01:43 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Let's not get personal. But yes.
2024-03-11 17:01:48 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Yeah, me too got confused
2024-03-11 17:01:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> bodhi will freak out in those circumstances
2024-03-11 17:02:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lol
2024-03-11 17:02:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> bodhi will get confused with an update that has a build that has been manually pushed to stable
2024-03-11 17:02:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's happened a couple of times where the update gets into a bad state because of it
2024-03-11 17:02:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, we avoid doing that
2024-03-11 17:02:44 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I'm inclined to say stick with the devil we know, and ship a crashy gnome-software
2024-03-11 17:02:45 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Gotta run to another meeting, sorry. WIll check the backlog later
2024-03-11 17:02:51 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks stephen
2024-03-11 17:03:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm fine with my notional +1 here, and let maintainers figure out if they want to try isolating gtk4 somehow
2024-03-11 17:03:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the issue, considered outside of the practicalities with the update, certainly feels reasonably FE-worthy
2024-03-11 17:03:41 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I guess I'm okay with letting them try
2024-03-11 17:03:56 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if they come up with a way, someone write it down
2024-03-11 17:04:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 BetaFE
2024-03-11 17:04:08 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1 BetaFE
2024-03-11 17:04:24 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Isn't this for Final?
2024-03-11 17:04:24 <@humaton:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:04:26 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1 BetaFE
2024-03-11 17:04:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we're on beta FEs atm
2024-03-11 17:04:56 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Fair enough
2024-03-11 17:04:59 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:05:03 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:06:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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)
2024-03-11 17:06:36 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:06:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 17:06:40 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 17:06:43 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:06:46 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 17:06:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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)
2024-03-11 17:06:53 <@humaton:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:07:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2268951) Ship updated kiwi to enable s390x Fedora Cloud image builds
2024-03-11 17:07:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268951
2024-03-11 17:07:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1511
2024-03-11 17:07:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kiwi, MODIFIED
2024-03-11 17:07:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+0,0,-1) (-nielsenb)
2024-03-11 17:07:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> +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)
2024-03-11 17:07:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> everything needed to land the whole Change will be ready once this is in
2024-03-11 17:07:57 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> +1 BetaFE
2024-03-11 17:08:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the pungi fixes are awaiting merge, the pungi-fedora PR and kiwi-descriptions PR can be merged after this
2024-03-11 17:08:51 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Well, if it can't _possibly_ hurt anything
2024-03-11 17:08:53 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:08:56 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:09:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:09:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i really shouldn't say that, but i'm pretty sure. :P
2024-03-11 17:09:25 <@humaton:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:09:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we've worked really hard to validate things as safely as possible
2024-03-11 17:10:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 17:10:42 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:10:43 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> !hi
2024-03-11 17:10:44 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
2024-03-11 17:10:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 17:10:55 <@humaton:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:11:00 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 17:11:11 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 17:11:23 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:15:11 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Anymore tickets? 
2024-03-11 17:15:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sorry
2024-03-11 17:15:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm off mulittasking again
2024-03-11 17:15:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes, there are more tickets
2024-03-11 17:15:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2024-03-11 17:15:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2268704) Plugin doesn't work on KDE Plasma 6
2024-03-11 17:15:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268704
2024-03-11 17:15:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1507
2024-03-11 17:15:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, plasma-wallpapers-dynamic, ON_QA
2024-03-11 17:15:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+1,0,-0) (+nielsenb)
2024-03-11 17:18:12 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> It feels pretty low risk to me
2024-03-11 17:18:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yeah, it does, but otoh it doesn't seem like being 0-day would hurt it much either
2024-03-11 17:18:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> ehhh
2024-03-11 17:19:17 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> The ticket mentions broken updates ... ?
2024-03-11 17:19:25 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> It read to me like it doesn't come back after update?
2024-03-11 17:19:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if you do a system upgrade right now, you wind up with a broken plasma if you have this installed
2024-03-11 17:19:33 <@timaeos:matrix.nexaeos.io> (for those who have dynamic enabled, it caused wallpaper to break to a solid black color)
2024-03-11 17:19:37 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> We should make  upgrades flawless, I feel
2024-03-11 17:19:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well, partly broken plasma
2024-03-11 17:20:22 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I do not think that falling back to black is that severe, are there any other breakages?
2024-03-11 17:20:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> timaeos reported it to me, which is how I got it fixed
2024-03-11 17:20:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess that's worth a +1 to me
2024-03-11 17:20:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lruzicka: I noticed that the wallpaper settings controls glitch out, but beyond that not too much more
2024-03-11 17:20:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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...
2024-03-11 17:21:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> hence the FE and not blocker :)
2024-03-11 17:21:22 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> I would also be willing to go +1 FE
2024-03-11 17:21:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm hoping this gets integrated into plasma proper at some point
2024-03-11 17:21:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (with the usual note that this fixes upgrades that happen before we do the 0-day update push)
2024-03-11 17:21:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 17:21:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yup
2024-03-11 17:22:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> apparently our KDE experience is good according to The Internet(tm)
2024-03-11 17:22:17 <@farchord:matrix.org> aka The Interwebz
2024-03-11 17:22:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so we have +3 at this point i suppose, any other votes?
2024-03-11 17:22:43 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:22:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:22:57 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:23:11 <@humaton:fedora.im> +1 Beta FE
2024-03-11 17:23:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 17:23:59 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:24:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 17:24:11 <@humaton:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:24:15 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 17:24:43 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:25:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2024-03-11 17:25:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2268497) F40 FE: KDE Plasma 6.0.1
2024-03-11 17:25:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268497
2024-03-11 17:25:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1502
2024-03-11 17:26:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, plasma-workspace, NEW
2024-03-11 17:26:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,1,-1) (+frantisekz, +ngompa, geraldosimiao, -nielsenb)
2024-03-11 17:26:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 17:26:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> at least we don't know about any critical bugs in this one?
2024-03-11 17:27:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> No, it seems to be fine and passing tests
2024-03-11 17:27:41 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> There's the icon one? 
2024-03-11 17:27:58 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Switching colors 
2024-03-11 17:28:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> as a new bug in 6.0.1?
2024-03-11 17:28:19 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Yeah, don't? 
2024-03-11 17:28:56 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> I don't think so 
2024-03-11 17:29:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I know it exists in 6.0 and there's a partial fix in 6.0.1
2024-03-11 17:29:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so it's not _new_
2024-03-11 17:31:09 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Ok then 
2024-03-11 17:31:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so...i guess i'd want to either punt this, or say "+1, but not for a candidate targeting this thursday"
2024-03-11 17:32:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if we decide we can't release this week it'd seem reasonable to pull it in
2024-03-11 17:32:17 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> that sounds fine for me
2024-03-11 17:32:38 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> I can go to +1 now 
2024-03-11 17:32:50 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Changing my previous vote 
2024-03-11 17:32:54 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 17:33:47 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> That's a good point.
But still, tomorrow we get 6.0.2
2024-03-11 17:33:49 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> I guess if people are saying it's not breaking stuff, I'm happy to wait a week and pull if feasible
2024-03-11 17:34:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if we wait a week, then we'll probably refresh the side tag with 6.0.2
2024-03-11 17:34:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> shall we say the FE also applies to an 6.0.2 update if built in an appropriate timeframe?
2024-03-11 17:34:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2024-03-11 17:34:36 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I'd be +1 for that 
2024-03-11 17:34:43 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Yeah 
2024-03-11 17:34:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: in the 'we slip and merge this' scenario, i would want to be merging it on *friday*
2024-03-11 17:34:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'd be +1 for that too
2024-03-11 17:34:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> is that doable?
2024-03-11 17:34:47 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1
2024-03-11 17:34:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (for 6.0.2?)
2024-03-11 17:34:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 6.0.2 by then, yes
2024-03-11 17:34:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay
2024-03-11 17:35:25 <@lruzicka:matrix.org> +1
2024-03-11 17:35:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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)
2024-03-11 17:35:38 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:35:45 <@humaton:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:35:49 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack 
2024-03-11 17:35:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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)
2024-03-11 17:36:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, last proposed fe
2024-03-11 17:36:08 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic (2264975) F40FailsToInstall: visidata
2024-03-11 17:36:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264975
2024-03-11 17:36:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1509
2024-03-11 17:36:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, visidata, ON_QA, depends on other bugs 
2024-03-11 17:36:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+frantisekz, +nielsenb)
2024-03-11 17:36:33 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> fti as always...
2024-03-11 17:36:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> sure, beta FTI, +1
2024-03-11 17:37:18 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> +1
2024-03-11 17:37:27 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:37:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> BetaFE +1
2024-03-11 17:37:57 <@humaton:fedora.im> BetaFE +1

2024-03-11 17:38:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 17:38:27 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:38:31 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> ack
2024-03-11 17:38:33 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ack
2024-03-11 17:39:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2024-03-11 17:39:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Accepted Blocker review
2024-03-11 17:39:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> since we're trying to ship, let's go through the accepted blockers quickly...
2024-03-11 17:39:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the executive summary is simple: we're waiting on ARM.
2024-03-11 17:40:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2024-03-11 17:40:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2024-03-11 17:41:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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.
2024-03-11 17:41:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm worried we have a process/resource mismatch here.
2024-03-11 17:41:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'm pretty sure there's gotta be a joke in here somewhere about "waiving our ARMs"...
2024-03-11 17:42:14 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i did ping peter about this meeting but i guess he's not around
2024-03-11 17:42:23 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> ARM always postponed 
2024-03-11 17:42:41 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Broken ARMs?
2024-03-11 17:42:48 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> And the shim one, it's like a meme now... 
2024-03-11 17:43:51 <@farribeiro:matrix.org> These waives are delaying the purchase of my SBC 
2024-03-11 17:43:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i was really hoping that was going to be finally ready this time :|
2024-03-11 17:44:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> still, I don't know that we can do anything except flag up the issues
2024-03-11 17:44:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> *notes fesco people in the room*
2024-03-11 17:45:21 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> What do you want FESCo to do? I'm not sure we have the necessary clout to extend days to 26 hours.
2024-03-11 17:46:08 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> We're getting too attached to our arms.  
2024-03-11 17:46:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> good question!
2024-03-11 17:46:13 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> 😊
2024-03-11 17:46:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 17:46:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and an awful lot of it runs through peter
2024-03-11 17:47:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> are you asking us to consider downgrading them?
2024-03-11 17:48:04 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Is Peter really the only one who can do this work in Fedora? 
2024-03-11 17:48:13 <@amoloney:fedora.im> genuine question - not loaded
2024-03-11 17:48:20 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: also, and this is important, does fesco have the clout to force universal acceptance of Swatch Internet Time
2024-03-11 17:48:57 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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.
2024-03-11 17:49:08 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney: I think he's the only one paid to work on it, yeah
2024-03-11 17:49:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: maybe? or somehow trying to get more people? I really don't know, I just know it feels like a problem
2024-03-11 17:49:36 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I was afraid that would be the answer. Ok thanks for the context
2024-03-11 17:50:10 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess if fedora made some *noise* about not being able to keep arm as release blocking it might shake loose some resources
2024-03-11 17:50:15 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 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.
2024-03-11 17:50:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that'd be the optimistic scenario
2024-03-11 17:50:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> That's... kind of what happened with KDE a decade aho.
2024-03-11 17:50:31 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> That's... kind of what happened with KDE a decade ago.
2024-03-11 17:50:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2024-03-11 17:51:27 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> It's a really hard case to make though
2024-03-11 17:51:36 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> You're basically carrying water for the ARM vendors
2024-03-11 17:52:01 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Pi is about as friendly as it gets, and even they lag on upstreaming things
2024-03-11 17:52:13 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Brandon Nielsen: I'm not sure that's a universally-understood metaphor. Could you translate?
2024-03-11 17:52:30 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Doing work for those who should probably do it on their own
2024-03-11 17:52:42 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Detach the arms 
2024-03-11 17:52:43 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> And they make it hard to do, to boot
2024-03-11 17:53:35 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> I know Peter is working on it now, unfortunately I don't have an eta on a fix. It's a slow process 
2024-03-11 17:53:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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?
2024-03-11 17:54:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes, indeed...
2024-03-11 17:55:20 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Oh my, this is a metaphor paradise 😄
2024-03-11 17:55:23 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> 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
2024-03-11 17:55:31 <@supakeen:fedora.im> And the shim(s).
2024-03-11 17:55:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> pwhalen: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247873 still shows as ASSIGNED
2024-03-11 17:56:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that's the Jetson Nano DTB issue
2024-03-11 17:56:34 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> RIght. 
2024-03-11 17:56:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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"
2024-03-11 17:57:22 <@adamwill:fedora.im> pwhalen: and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267968 is the pi 400 issue, currently assigned to bcm283x-firmware
2024-03-11 17:57:25 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> 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).
2024-03-11 17:58:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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.
2024-03-11 17:58:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we don't even have an x86_64 one yet, though. sigh
2024-03-11 18:00:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !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
2024-03-11 18:00:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !topic Open floor
2024-03-11 18:00:37 <@adamwill:fedora.im> any other business? i guess we don't have time for final blockers, please vote in-ticket
2024-03-11 18:01:02 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !fesco 3178
2024-03-11 18:01:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **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
2024-03-11 18:01:23 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Would that include the ARM cloud images?
2024-03-11 18:01:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if an arch is not blocking none of its images can be blocking, indeed
2024-03-11 18:01:54 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Ugh
2024-03-11 18:02:06 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but i guess we could also say 'no more hardware blocking but virt/cloud is blocking'
2024-03-11 18:02:22 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> non-blocking does not mean not shipped either.
2024-03-11 18:02:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that would certainly cover a lot of the issue, i don't think i recall a case where we slipped on virt/cloud functionality
2024-03-11 18:02:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> of course
2024-03-11 18:02:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Anyway, that ticket is for FESCo to consider the situation.
2024-03-11 18:03:13 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> Perhaps non-blocking desktop images would be more appropriate than the arch completely? 
2024-03-11 18:03:41 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> Or SBC's, rather only blocking on enterprise. 
2024-03-11 18:03:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think all of that should be up for discussion for sure
2024-03-11 18:04:43 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Sorry, I didn't intend to extend the meeting. Just noting that I filed the ticket so it didn't get overlooked
2024-03-11 18:05:03 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Do you think it's realistic to say we can get a rc iso in a couple of days? 
2024-03-11 18:06:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it entirely depends on the arm fixes, i would say
2024-03-11 18:06:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> one option we have is to build a candidate tomorrow regardless of whether those are fixed
2024-03-11 18:06:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and then we can start up the ol' waiver discussion at the go/no-go
2024-03-11 18:06:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (if they aren't)
2024-03-11 18:06:56 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I'd be all for that, personally
2024-03-11 18:07:09 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Yeah, we can start doing release validation 
2024-03-11 18:07:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you can do release validation already!
2024-03-11 18:07:20 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> On the arch working 
2024-03-11 18:07:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this is an important point for quality folks, *please* don't wait for a candidate to do validation testing
2024-03-11 18:07:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there are always matrices for the nightlies and it is super useful to have the tests all run on those
2024-03-11 18:08:39 <@adamwill:fedora.im> 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.
2024-03-11 18:09:01 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> For arm, Raspberry Pi testing should be possible on the RPi3/4. Just not the 400. 
2024-03-11 18:09:37 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> And a graphical desktop is only expected to work on the 4, right?
2024-03-11 18:09:52 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> I'd say even on 3
2024-03-11 18:10:02 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> I believe so based on ram requirements
2024-03-11 18:10:08 <@frantisekz:fedora.im> ahh
2024-03-11 18:10:18 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> That was not the case when I asked about Gnome last release cycle, which is why I'm asking again
2024-03-11 18:10:42 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> My poor 3
2024-03-11 18:10:57 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> I think Gnome recommends more than 1G now/
2024-03-11 18:11:02 <@nielsenb:fedora.im> Yeah
2024-03-11 18:11:09 <@pwhalen:fedora.im> I think Gnome recommends more than 1G now?
2024-03-11 18:11:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/latest/release-notes/welcome/Hardware_Overview/ says minimum 2GB (that's usually read as applying to Workstation)
2024-03-11 18:12:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so if pi 3 is less than 2GB i think it's reasonable to say expecting gnome to work is pretty borderline
2024-03-11 18:12:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we used to make xfce or something the default arm desktop because of this, but we changed that a long time ago...
2024-03-11 18:12:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay, we're a bit over time and into details, so...shall we wind up?
2024-03-11 18:14:01 <@geraldosimiao:matrix.org> Yeah
2024-03-11 18:17:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> thanks for coming, folks!
2024-03-11 18:17:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> !endmeeting