<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:52
!startmeeting F40-blocker-review
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:01:53
Meeting started at 2024-04-01 16:01:52 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:01:53
The Meeting name is 'F40-blocker-review'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:01:56
!topic Roll Call
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:02:01
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:02
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:02:04
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:06
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:02:07
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:02:07
Brandon Nielsen (nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:02:11
ahoyhoy, who's around for blocker meeting fun
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:02:59
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:03:00
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:04:38
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:04:39
Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
<@pboy:fedora.im>
16:04:44
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:04:45
Peter Boy (pboy)
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:05:11
The QA meeting continues
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:05:12
hi hi everyone
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:06:38
it's a good thing we like/tolerate one another
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:06:41
;)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:06:43
Not anymore
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:07:06
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:07:08
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:45
haha
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:08:49
alrighty, boilerplate time
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:26
!topic Introduction
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:29
Why are we here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:33
!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>
16:10:36
!info We'll be following the process outlined at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:39
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:41
!info The bugs up for review today are available at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:44
!link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:47
!info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:50
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:53
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Beta_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:10:55
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Final_Release_Criteria
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:17
!info for Final, we have:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:21
!info 3 Proposed Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:24
!info 2 Accepted Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:27
!info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:29
!info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:11:38
does someone want to secretarialize?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:14:04
I will volunteer
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:14:21
having quickly reviewed the SOP :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:29
thanks neil! i'll double check
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:41
!info Neil Hanlon will secretarialize, thanks neil
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:47
let's get started with:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:50
!topic Proposed Final blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:55
!topic (2271837) The KDE help center does not show the documentation for KDE applications.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:14:57
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271837
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:01
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1544
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:04
!info Proposed Blocker, khelpcenter, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:07
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-1) (-nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:46
on the face of it this does look blockery...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:15:55
"For all release-blocking desktop / arch combinations, the following applications must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test: ... help viewer"
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:16:20
Yeah, that one
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:17:23
+1 FinalBlocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:18:23
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:18:31
Honestly, a help center app is pretty critical, especially for how complex KDE can be.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:18:34
It's pretty clear cut +1 FB
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:18:34
+1 FinalBlocker
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:18:43
+1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:19:01
Yeah, while I agree with the sentiment from nielsenb, I think it is also clearly a blocker. +1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:19:03
A help center app is necessary in any environment because you cannot assume anything about user intuition
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:07
Stephen Gallagher: yeah, that's why it's in the list
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:19:10
I'd vote not to waive this if it was the last blocker at Go/No-Go
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:19:11
GNOME is just as complex and mysterious to users as KDE is
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:19:18
I feel like almost everyone will just Google
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:19:25
just in different ways
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:19:28
I have never used a help app since like, Windows 98
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:19:29
Conan Kudo: I wasn't trying to be partisan, sorry.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:19:53
proposed !agreed 2271837 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of Final criterion "For all release-blocking desktop / arch combinations, the following applications must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test: ... help viewer"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:19:54
Stephen Gallagher: no worries :)
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:19:55
It's definitely a slam dunk blocker by the criteria though
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:20:06
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:20:07
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:20:10
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:20:16
Ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:20:16
Ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:20:30
yeah mostly I get confused when a help menu opens. "what did I just click by accident?"
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:20:31
ack
<@pboy:fedora.im>
16:20:47
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:20:52
"I'm beyond help, but thank you"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:03
!agreed 2271837 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of Final criterion "For all release-blocking desktop / arch combinations, the following applications must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test: ... help viewer"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:15
!topic (2272149) Loupe cannot open JPEG images
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:18
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272149
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:20
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1545
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:23
!info Proposed Blocker, loupe, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:25
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao, +catanzaro, +nielsenb)
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:22:30
Zodbot didn't get the message
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:40
@farribeiro:matrix.org: that's because it was a proposal
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:44
the final version is above
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:22:51
Yeah, this is blockery. That's a pretty basic requirement.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:22:55
+1 FinalBlocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:22:57
ok, so this has +3 already, but i didn't get to accepting it yet because of...fire
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:23:02
anyone want to argue -1?
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:23:22
Ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:23:29
nope
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:23:48
+1.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:24:07
+1 FinalBlocker
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:24:24
(I also just reproduced it on my aarch64 system, if anyone wanted another data point)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:24:37
@farribeiro:matrix.org: i used to just go straight to !agreed, but sometimes folks disagree with the summary i write, so the proposal/ack thing gives people a chance to edit it
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:24:41
+1
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:25:29
Ok
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:25:47
proposed !agreed 2272149 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a clear violation of "For all release-blocking desktop / arch combinations, the following applications must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test: ... image viewer"
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:25:59
Ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:25:59
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:26:01
(we don't need to get to the 'all applications for GNOME' bit, since image viewer is in the restricted list already...
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:26:01
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:26:22
ack
<@pboy:fedora.im>
16:26:22
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:26:26
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:26:45
@farribeiro:matrix.org: Basically, there are three responses that people might give: ack (I approve), nack (that's completely wrong, e.g copy-paste error) and patch (I have a suggestion for better phrasing)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:05
!agreed 2272149 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a clear violation of "For all release-blocking desktop / arch combinations, the following applications must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test: ... image viewer"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:13
!topic (2270209) Firmware RAID set not usable in anaconda when booting native UEFI: "ERROR:blivet:failed to determine name for the md array a7ff7f19-f142-4329-6b52-1dbafa835906"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:16
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270209
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:19
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1533
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:22
!info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:25
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-1) (-nielsenb)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:27
!info Ticket vote: BetaFreezeException (+2,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao, +ngompa)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:35
unfortunately, looks like we didn't get any testing on other systems yet
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:27:41
or feedback from the blivet dev
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:28:03
I don't think we can make a blocker decision right now
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:28:09
but I'm comfortable granting FE for this
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:28:33
i think last week we said we'd want some idea of what the fix would be
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:28:39
I would personally lean toward blocking but only because not being able to see RAID arrays and use them is pretty bad
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:29:01
but since we don't have more details, I don't know what to say here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:14
yeah, if this actually e.g. affected *all* firmware RAID installs on UEFI i'd lean towards blocking. but we just don't know that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:23
it's entirely likely it's rather some quirk of my test system
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:30:50
that's why i was hoping other folks could test :/ i only have this one system with firmware RAID support that I can test on (all my other systems are laptops at this point)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:31:05
I don't even _have_ systems like this anymore
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:31:11
that was two jobs ago :(
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:31:13
Remind me: firmware RAID is a RAID array on a dedicated PCI card?
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:31:15
I don't have anything with firmware RAID anymore
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:31:37
And even if I did, I think it's the same as the chip noted here
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:31:41
Stephen Gallagher: no, it's RAID array backed by motherboard firmware
<@pboy:fedora.im>
16:31:56
Not necessary, it's very often bios build in
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:32:37
I thought the mainboard one was `fakeraid`.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:32:41
there's a dedicated storage controller chip in the motherboard enhanced by the board firmware to be able to glue storage ports
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:32:44
Or maybe I'm just dating myself
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:33:11
fakeraid is the one where the card/chip is controlled and configured from the OS, I believe
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:33:24
that's the dmraid stuff from the days of youre
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:33:27
*yore even
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:34:49
Stephen Gallagher: we're using "firmware RAID" to mean a RAID array managed by the mainboard firmware, as distinct from "software RAID" managed by the OS, or "hardware RAID" managed by a separate dedicated hw controller
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:34:50
it's all confusing :(
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:35:54
adamw: Thanks. So, I think I have a (very old) system that meets that description gathering dust under my desk in the office. I can probably try to do some testing there if needed.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:35:59
It doesn't help right now, but I think I can check this out on my older desktop which appears to have such support
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:36:38
my desktop has it, but it doesn't work with Linux anyway
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:36:41
No, wait. Scratch that; looking at the specs on it, it has an add-in card. Never mind.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:36:46
Linux cannot see the disks on the controller at all
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:37:00
and my even older desktop has a broken UEFI
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:37:04
well, fun
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:37:08
https://rog.asus.com/us/motherboards/rog-strix/rog-strix-b450-f-gaming-model/ is the board I have
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:37:10
so I can't even boot Linux on UEFI
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:37:16
:( boo
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:37:46
Yeah, I don't think the AMD solutions have ever worked on Linux
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:38:14
I don't think they're very good on Windows either
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:38:33
that board supports "NVM Express RAID". I'm not sure exactly how that's implemented or which bucket we'd put it in. it's probably the same as "firmware RAID", but I'd have to look into ti
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:38:40
The Intel ones have always worked for me, but were inferior to mdraid so I don't really see the point
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:00
probably the best test is another intel board with classic intel firmware RAID, though. if someone has one.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:39:01
me either. i'll poke around a bit. i've got an even older intel board which also might have some support. we'll see :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:15
anyhow, it can't *hurt* to test on anything you've got that's some kind of RAID :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:39:24
i guess for now we'll have to punt this again?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:39:30
yeah
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:39:37
adamw: Spoken like someone who's never tried *using* RAID ✌️
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:14
heh
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:42:24
i did say *test on*
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:02
proposed !agreed 2270209 - punt (delay decision) - unfortunately we have to punt on this again as we still do not have sufficient information to make an informed decision. testing on more hardware would be very valuable here
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:43:14
ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
16:43:14
ack
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:43:19
ack
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:43:21
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:43:25
Ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:31
!agreed 2270209 - punt (delay decision) - unfortunately we have to punt on this again as we still do not have sufficient information to make an informed decision. testing on more hardware would be very valuable here
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:46
okay, checking in quickly on accepted blockers:
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:43:56
!topic Accepted blocker check-in
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:44:11
!info 2269412 is on the way to being fixed, fixed update is in testing and some testers have confirmed the fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:45:06
!info 2269286 - it turns out this needs a bunch of deps to be updated for an optimal fix. Fabio is working on that; if it can't be completed in time, we have the fallback option of building snapshot with some deps bundled in
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:18
any other notes on those?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:46:26
point of inquiry: does the secretary need to record updates for these check-ins?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:35
Neil Hanlon: nope
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:46:39
ack.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:46:45
unless i specifically say something about that
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:47:07
that was my read as well. "If the meeting discussion does not add anything substantive to what is already covered in the bug report, it is not necessary for the secretary to make any change or add any comment to the bug report."
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:47:48
!topic Open floor
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:47:52
alrighty, any other business, folks?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
16:48:19
not from I.
<@nielsenb:fedora.im>
16:48:39
Me either
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:48:39
nope
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:48:46
the world burned for three days and three nights
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:48:50
I'm good now
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
16:49:04
nope
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:49:07
still feels toasty over here!
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
16:49:25
there are definitely some licks of flames here :)
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
16:49:39
Nope
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:54:23
thanks everyone!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:08
now to fix openqa message consumers...sigh...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
16:55:16
!endmeeting