<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:27
!startmeeting F41 Final Go/No-Go meeting
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:02:27
Meeting started at 2024-10-24 17:02:27 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:02:28
The Meeting name is 'F41 Final Go/No-Go meeting'
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:34
!roll call
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:41
Hmmm
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:48
!topic Roll call
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:52
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:02:54
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:02:55
!hi
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:02:56
morning everyone.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:00
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:03:12
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:14
František Zatloukal (frantisekz)
<@smilner:fedora.im>
17:03:24
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:25
None (smilner)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:03:29
Princ Hiyaya
<@farchord:fedora.im>
17:03:43
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:45
Steve Cossette (farchord) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:04:04
Morning Kevin! Evening Europeans! Afternoon and good night other geographically located attendees!
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:04:08
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:09
Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:04:20
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:22
Lukáš Růžička (lruzicka)
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
17:04:24
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:25
Geoffrey Marr (coremodule)
<@tmus:matrix.org>
17:04:39
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:41
No Fedora Accounts users have the @tmus:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:05:35
!info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F41 Final is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:00
!info This is determined in a few ways
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:13
!info Release candidate compose is available
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:19
!info No remaining blocker bugs
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:34
!info Test matrices are fully complete
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:41
!info Fedora CoreOS and IoT are ready
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:58
Thats why were here, and mostly who is here :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:15
!info Current Status - Release Candidate
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:20
Do we have one?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:07:27
we have almost 2! :)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:07:30
not one, two of them!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:32
a choice!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:42
red pill or blue pill
<@jnsamyak:matrix.org>
17:07:44
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:07:46
Samyak Jain (jnsamyak) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:09
Thank you for joining jnsamyak :)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:08:12
so yes, there is a 1.3 and a 1.4 (that is finished and syncing now)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:08:35
we're testing 1.4 already, with lruzicka and Kamil Páral
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:08:42
1.4 and 1.3 are nearly identical, except for a single patch to Anaconda, as I understand it.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:08:44
1.3 is well and thoroughly tested, but there is one blocker on it.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:08:49
Lukas Brabec: are you able to do rpi sanity testing?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:08:56
one proposed blocker
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:09:08
with +7
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:09:08
František Zatloukal: I can do so as well. Which image do you want me to boot?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:09:10
there's a few other changes in 1.4 also, but should be pretty minor
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:09:31
ideally all of the aarch64 blocking deliverables I'd say, do they install and boot?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:09:34
so to complete this topic. we have an RC. ;) Should we move to the next?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:09:36
nirik: What else went into 1.4 that wasn't in 1.3?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:39
Well should we continue the ceremony? Is 1.4 a contender?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:44
sanp
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:09:51
so, that'd be aarch64 everything, workstation, and kde
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:00
snsp
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:10:04
both 1.3 and 1.4 are contenders, based on how to vote on proposed blockers
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:04
snap
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:10:09
both 1.3 and 1.4 are contenders, based on how we vote on proposed blockers
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:10:14
"everything" or "minimal"?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:31
ok then, lets get into the Blockers topic
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:10:40
I'll start with minimal and go from there.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:10:47
minimal, sorry
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:10:49
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12406#comment-940247
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:51
!info We have two candidate composes, RC 1.3 and RC 1.4
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:06
!topic Blockers
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:26
!link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/41/final/buglist
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:11:40
František Zatloukal: I assume you'll take this section
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:11:41
gimme the mic!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:42
Who shall I turn the reins over to from QA?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:11:46
:D
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:52
Its yours František Zatloukal !
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:11:59
We have:
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:00
!info 2 Proposed Blockers
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:06
!info 0 Accepted Blockers
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:09
!info 0 Accepted 0-day Blockers
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:15
!info 0 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:20
!info 5 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:24
!info 7 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:35
!topic Proposed Blockers
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:40
!topic (2320821) GNOME Clocks hangs when an alarm is triggered
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:45
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2320821
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:49
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1730
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:54
!info Proposed Blocker, gtk4, POST
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:58
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+3,0,-6) (+kparal, +lruzicka, +catanzaro, -kevin, -frantisekz, -augenauf, -vwbusguy, -pbrobinson, -geraldosimiao)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:13:04
!info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+4,0,-0) (+sgallagh, +adamwill, +kevin, +frantisekz)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:13:08
!info Ticket vote: 0Day (+1,0,-0) (+geraldosimiao)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:14:08
I retain my -1 blocker vote.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:14:21
There are a lot of -1 votes, but I believe those rather mean "I don't think this should block the release" than "I don't think the criterion is violated"
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:14:24
So, just to note, this one isn't fixed by the 1.4 compose
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:14:44
I don't think this should block the release = not a blocker :D
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:14:48
I am staying with -1 with all of its implications
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:14:56
Kamil Páral: I'll go ahead and say that I don't consider it "basic functionality" of a clock.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:14:59
I think there's also some discussion about if this is 'basic functionality; or not?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:15:14
And I'm against considering it a blocker, even one that we waive for being late.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:15:26
that's the basis for the proposed blocker, whether the basic functionality is broken
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:15:53
if people are overall -1, it looks like we should change the criterion. Can be done post-release, but still.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:16:18
we can discuss this post-release for sure
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:16:35
Kamil Páral: I think there has to be some reasonable exception mechanism to the effect of "this might violate a strict reading of a criterion, but it's not realistically something worth blocking on"
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:16:45
Is there someone here from Workstation SIG?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:16:49
mcatanzaro from Workstation WG was +1, though, and we didn't receive more votes from them
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:16:58
If so, what is their stand point?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:17:04
ok
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:17:04
fwiw to me 'basic functionality' for my clock on my OS is - It tells the right time, I can set an alarm. Does it do those things? I think most end users would just need those ....
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:17:23
Aoife Moloney: It does not, Aoife
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:17:23
Aoife Moloney: nicely said... the alarm is broken
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:17:32
well then!
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:17:50
Aoife Moloney: Setting one is fine! It just hangs when the alarm fires...
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:18:04
but does it readjust to the right time?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:18:17
well, Aoife Moloney you can set the alarm, it only goes off with a notification, no sound, no snooze possible. Ok, for you?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:18:19
you get a notification but no sound, and the app hangs
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:18:43
oh no, I *need* a snooze option (personally)
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:18:45
!hi
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:18:47
you can however restart the app, the you get the sound :D
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:18:47
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:18:57
and sound is....kind of the point?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:18:58
side note: not sure who would use this in a live boot, and we can fix it in updates (but I know thats a side note)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:19:04
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:19:06
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:19:35
yeah, I think this could be fixed in updated, pretty easily. Common Bugs if needed.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:19:47
yeah, I think this could be fixed in updates, pretty easily. Common Bugs if needed.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:19:53
could it be a zero day update? or listed as a known bug with fix available? We just dont have time to do it now if we want to release next week?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:19:57
the current fix is risky, it's in gtk, and we weren't ready to push it stable
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:20:04
proposal: reject as blocker now, revisit critera after release?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:20:09
so the fix might arrive some day, but not at release time
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:20:13
nirik: +1
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:20:15
in my opinion - basic functionality of the clock app is to show the clock, alarm is better to have than not, but not breaking a basic functionality as described
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:20:30
František Zatloukal: I could get behind that.
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
17:20:48
nirik +1
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:20:52
Well, Stephen Gallagher nirik we have just heard people expect that functionality. Blocker, waive it, common bugs -> my solution.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:21:19
Thats another option, but can we get enough people to change -1 votes for that? ;)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:21:36
lruzicka: I still don't think it's a blocker. If someone wanted to pitch it as an F42 blocker today, I'd tell them "no".
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:21:53
I am not sure, we just need to be aware of the thing that if we lower the bar each time, finally we'll arrive at a point of no bars.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:22:30
ok, so if everybody stand by their web vote, this should be dismissed.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:23:04
so, we're standing at +3/-6, did I forget anybody?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:23:12
sadly, it looks like we're not going to get consensus here
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:23:25
which basically means not a blocker
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:23:43
the blockery guys lost terribly, England falls for the French.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:24:27
ok, so...what shall we do here? just use the existing votes since no one wants to change?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:24:37
nirik: I guess so
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:24:42
Stephen Gallagher: I hope we'll get a well thought-out proposal on how to adjust the criteria, once the release is over
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:24:42
I have the text ready...
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:24:52
If this is the worst blocker then I could get behind dismissing. I just do like the idea of mentioning it in commonbugs so people are at least aware
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:24:57
Kamil Páral: the one you will write :D
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:25:09
Kamil Páral: I'll give it some thought
<@farchord:fedora.im>
17:25:19
Yeah imo as far as blockers go, this is a very light one....
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:25:20
ok
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:25:26
proposed !agreed 2320821 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - this doesn't violate the proposed criterion "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_desktop_app_basic" as discussed by the stakeholders. While alarm is an important function of a Clocks application, it wasn't deemed that it fits the basic functionality criterion.
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:25:33
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:25:33
Wait for it 🐘
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:25:43
patch
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:26:12
I would say there's no consensus if it is or not.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:26:18
Replace "this doesn't violate" with "we didn't reach consensus that it violates"
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:26:18
Yeah, same.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:26:19
Aoife Moloney: there is one more, maybe bigger
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:26:39
proposed !agreed 2320821 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - Consensus could not be reached that this violates the proposed criterion "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_desktop_app_basic" as discussed by the stakeholders. While alarm is an important function of a Clocks application, it wasn't deemed that it fits the basic functionality criterion.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:26:53
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:26:59
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:27:01
ack
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:27:02
well you could've dropped the last sentence, but whatever
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:27:03
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:27:05
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:27:11
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:27:16
I am the most frightening acker
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:27:19
!agreed 2320821 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - Consensus could not be reached that this violates the proposed criterion "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_desktop_app_basic" as discussed by the stakeholders. While alarm is an important function of a Clocks application, it wasn't deemed that it fits the basic functionality criterion.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:27:29
!topic (2321249) Anaconda over VNC doesn't accept any input (bare metal with native video driver only)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:27:34
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2321249
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:27:38
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1733
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:27:44
!info Proposed Blocker, tigervnc, MODIFIED
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:27:49
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+9,0,-0) (+asciiwolf, +kparal, +ngompa, +vwbusguy, +pbrobinson, +geraldosimiao, +sumantrom, +mattdm, +kevin)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:27:53
And this is it.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:28:02
we have plenty of consensus here...
<@farchord:fedora.im>
17:28:03
Didn'T this get fixed?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:28:05
yeah, this seems like a blocker to me...
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:28:06
9 +'s?! 👀
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:10
this one is broken in 1.3 and fixed in 1.4 (in my testing)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:28:12
this is fixed in 1.4
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:28:14
this is fixed in 1.4
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:28:35
there's a workaround for 1.3 to use nomodeset, but it has side-effects (especially it configures the target system to also use nomodeset)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:28:39
I don't think this one is debatable. It's critical for headless deployments.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:28:41
(which BTW, is now synced out and open)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:28:43
But, there is an easy and safe workaround so anybody could use VNC to install their stuff.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:28:58
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:29:00
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:29:15
Everything works with "nomodeset" grub option.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:29:20
yeah, on server/headless, nomodeset is a viable option
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:30:11
so, lets accept this one and move on? or is anyone saying -1?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:30:48
is anyone arguing for releasing 1.3 and documenting the workaround, rather than having it fixed in 1.4?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:31:08
note: 1.4 isn't sufficiently tested at this point
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:31:13
I am, because the 1.3 is well tested.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:31:29
If 1.4 have only this change...
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:31:36
I think it's definitely a blocker, but we could consider waiving it under the "late blocker" policy if we so chose
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:31:38
well, do we have that discussion now?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:31:48
I think we should
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:31:50
We have covered the installability of 1.4 and that VNC bug is fixed.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:31:53
how do you tell? we should discuss the "sufficient"
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:31:55
there are ways we could address this as a blocker: say it's too late, use 1.4, etc
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:31:56
The rest has not been covered.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:32:09
my proposal is to release 1.4. Basic tests for 1.4 will only take us a few hours, and we can have GO tomorrow. If it's possible.
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:32:30
Workstation 1.4 boots as expected on RPi4
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:32:33
the basic sanity tests were done, or are promised, as I understood it, during the meeting
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:32:38
1.4 have any other changes?
<@conest:transfem.dev>
17:32:41
For me bluetooth on newer kernel require manually pairing through bluetoothctl --> scan on --> connect [mac address here] . then only it would work connecting again through gnome bt ui. Pretty frustrating for a person trying fedora for the first time.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:32:44
No Fedora Accounts users have the @lbrabec:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:32:45
well first of all, there's no matrix. So we don't even have overview what was tested already and what wasn't.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:33:14
I will not have time to devote that much to testing as I could do yesterday and today, so I do not want to promise anything on 1.4
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:33:19
we don't need the matrix, you said off chat you did UEFI, lruzicka and myself did BIOS, aarch64 sanity is in progress
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:33:38
note that the next section of this meeting talks about test coverage...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:33:48
Frantisek, at the same time, I can't recommend GO without seeing the matrix populated
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:33:53
yes, I and Frantisek covered the USB sanity installations.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:33:53
can we just decide the blockeryness of this bug first?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:33:54
yeah, good point nirik
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:33:57
on bare metal
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:34:15
so, I assume we still have consensus for +1
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
17:34:15
aarch64 server iso install with usb worked
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
17:34:21
of 1.4
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:34:40
Yes this makes more sense. Lets sort through the list and have a deeper dive then on the testing part
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:34:41
yeah, I think this is a clear blocker. we can decide what to do to address it, but it's pretty clear
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:34:43
We have done this before, used a new rc that only did change one or tho things, to use the prior matrix
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:34:57
I can be -1 with the documented workaround, because the VNC works this way and therefore does not violate the criterion any more.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:35:33
but who is going to know to do that? they are going to try and install as usual and say 'man, fedora is broken'
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:35:33
a documented workaround only helps a fraction of users
<@conest:transfem.dev>
17:35:39
dnf5 also makes most fedora guides obsolete since commands like `fedora group update` are missing and it's rather complex to maintain dnf4 and dnf5 packages at the same time. Even rpmfusion does not have dedicated 41 section as we speak.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:35:48
I think it's still a blocker, but that's an argument to waive with a workaround
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:35:54
the others will probably use a different method anyway
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:36:28
conest 🏳️⚧️: thanks for feedback, but now we only discuss proposed blockers
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:36:53
yeah, no problem with that :D For me, it makes perfect logic because the 1.3 matrices are fully coeverfd
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:37:02
yeah, no problem with that :D For me, it makes perfect logic because the 1.3 matrices are fully covered
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:25
The thing is: does a blocker with a good workaround still blockery?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:37:50
the answer it "it depends"
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:38:06
👀
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:38:12
Yeah
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:38:13
ok, so, should we vote again?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:38:34
It's a judgment call; is the set of people likely to encounter the issue also likely to be able to discover the workaround.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:38:40
It's a judgment call; is the set of people likely to encounter the issue also likely to be able to discover the workaround?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:39:05
I don't understand why you'd want to release with the bug when we fixed it and even tested the fix
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:39:10
and is the set of people likely to hit it large.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:39:52
That's a fair point; this is mostly useful for headless deployments, but what percentage of them will do interactive vs. kickstart?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:39:57
we know that we can test 1.4 in a few hours max, maybe even still today (tomorrow would be safer)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:40:06
I mean, preferring longer-tested 1.3 with viable workaround for the blocker is a valid preference
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:40:09
FWIW, we use this method to install in fedora infra... boot and use vnc to adjust storage if it's a non standard config we don't want to make a kickstart for
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:40:14
we'd only do basic tests and everything else stayed the same
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:40:19
👀
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:40:29
what are the basic tests?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:40:36
basic installation
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:40:45
that's done
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:40:48
All in all, I'm still a +1 to block on it, but it's a weaker +1 than yesterday.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:40:48
these are done or in progress for aarch64
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:40:55
and vnc of course, but I already performed it. More testing is of course welcome.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:41:06
yeah, weak +1 , so +0.666..666
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:41:10
František Zatloukal: aarch64 minimal is good. I just haven't updated the matrix yet
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:41:22
that's why I'm saying a couple of hours max
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:41:26
so, that's just KDE @ aarch64 missing now
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:41:40
frantisekz gave a cookie to sgallagh. They now have 243 cookies, 18 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:41:42
Starting KDE now
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:41:51
who is going to do it? we are heading into the night.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:41:55
farribeiro gave a cookie to sgallagh. They now have 244 cookies, 19 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:42:03
we just need to convince relval to create a new matrix, populate it with whatever we already did, and look at the blanks, whether something else is needed
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:42:07
doing...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:42:54
seems we're stuck, let's start the vote and see
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:42:57
So, I think even with one -1 this is still largely thought to be a blocker?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:43:59
I think "the installer doesn't work without a workaround in cases we know at least one major consumer uses" is enough for me to stay +1 blocker.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:44:29
Still +1 blocker here.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:44:44
Ok, then let's block on this and then talk how to solve it.
<@conest:transfem.dev>
17:44:53
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2319597 can we talk about this? It was said to be fixed with 6.11.4-301 but I still have to opt for workaround ? bt devices would only pair after I do bluetoothctl --> scan on --> connect [mac address here]
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:44:58
+1 blocker
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:44:59
anybodye else?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:45:30
we have +4 at the live session now
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
17:45:35
+1 blocker
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:45:36
conest 🏳️⚧️: sorry, it's fixed for most people, so it's no longer a blocker for the whole release
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:45:53
+1 blocker
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:45:58
proposed !agreed 2321249 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - VNC installations are required to work as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_User_Interface_VNC criterion. While we do have workaround for the issue by disabling the mode-setting, it's not enough to take the criterion as fulfilled.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:10
Where talking about the anaconda vnc bug right.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:14
?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:46:24
yep yep, anaconda vnc bug now
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:46:25
O think so
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:29
So I still +1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:46:30
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:46:31
yes
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:46:32
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:46:36
I think so
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:46:38
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:46:39
Ack
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
17:46:42
ack
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
17:46:44
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:48
Ack
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:46:58
ack
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:46:58
!agreed 2321249 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - VNC installations are required to work as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_User_Interface_VNC criterion. While we do have workaround for the issue by disabling the mode-setting, it's not enough to take the criterion as fulfilled.
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:47:08
KDE 1.4 boots as expected on RPi4
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:47:15
And now let's heroe the 1.4
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:47:23
🎆
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:47:26
(late ack)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:47:43
so, normally we'd the the freeze exceptions now, we've thought with Kamil Páral that we may skip those?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:47:47
so... do we want to go over accepted FEs then? or punt on them?
<@conest:transfem.dev>
17:47:50
You would find atleast 4 posts on fedora subreddit under a day talking about the same. Everyone is settling for the workaround of the terminal. Should not be the case tbh. https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/1g685o9/bluetooth_headphones_pairing_bug_workaround/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/1gajodp/fedora_40_kde_621_bluetooth_problems/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/1gab16o/cant_connect_sony_phones_to_bluetooth/
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:48:01
We don't do FEs at Go/No-Go I thought.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:48:02
yeah... I'm ok with not right now.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:48:03
so, normally we'd do the freeze exceptions now, we've thought with Kamil Páral that we may skip those?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:48:05
if we decide to release 1.4 today/tomorrow, then there's no point in discussing FEs
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:48:21
well, if something comes up we will still need them for the next rc...
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:48:25
but yeah, that
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:48:33
conest 🏳️⚧️: Please stop derailing the Go/No-Go meeting. Please take your discussion to #quality:fedoraproject.org
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:49:08
so on to test coverage?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:49:11
Aoife Moloney: this would be all for the blocker review
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:49:15
I'd not waste time on FEs right now, only when we know we'll slip
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:49:36
sorry just scrolling back
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:49:39
thank you!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:50:25
so should we move on with the rest of the meeting? If we are not cleared of all release blockers, that sounds like we should make a decision?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:50:53
(and one is unfortunately apparent)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:51:04
let's see the test coverage, and then decide what to do about RC1.4
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:51:18
ok, makes sense
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:51:28
!topic Current Status - Test Matrices
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:51:45
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_41_Test_Results
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:51:54
yes, test coverage, then see
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:52:08
We're missing some at 1.3
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:52:44
QA:Testcase_install_to_hardware_RAID ; QA:Testcase_install_to_SAS
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:52:46
I see those
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:53:03
OK, those which we often handwave because they're uncommon hardware
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:53:14
otherwise full it seems
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:53:19
for 1.4, everything should translate over except... vnc cases?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:53:37
and basic sanity - does it boot, install, boot?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:53:44
which ones are we short František Zatloukal ?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:53:49
nirik: Was anything besides anaconda added to 1.4? You indicated that there was something else earlier in another channel
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:53:57
these two: QA:Testcase_install_to_hardware_RAID ; QA:Testcase_install_to_SAS
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:54:00
sorry my screen didnt udate, ignore
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:54:16
sorry my screen didnt update, ignore
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:54:16
as Stephen Gallagher said, we do usually just behave like those didn't exist :)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:54:20
we do not have the hardware and nobody who has did it
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:54:29
this was also added in 1.4: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4ccf448f63
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:54:47
doesn't affect any of the blocking deliverables I think?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:54:55
but nothing else was added compared to 1.3
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:55:01
that does not seem like blocking
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:55:15
right, that should only affect the miracle spin.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:55:27
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12406#comment-940247
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:55:35
VNC installation
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:55:35
so - let's start with definition of the tests we need to do over again over 1.3:
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:55:35
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:55:35
Boot and Installation of all blocking deliverables
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:55:47
we'll make the mini-matrix here.. :D
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:55:54
you mean 1.4?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:56:14
I've meant again on 1.4... sorry my wording
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:56:46
does anyone know how to do it?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:56:55
I'm getting auth issues
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:57:47
I'm not fully sure... let me look around.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:58:12
So, it sounds like folks are of the opinion of testing 1.4 quickly and go on that?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:58:35
how long would be needed to get enough coverage for us to be happy with a go on 1.4?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:58:37
it works now
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:58:41
I'm creating 1.4 matrix
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:59:03
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_RC_1.4_Summary
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:59:18
💯
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:59:19
I am happy now, but... you know my yolo style...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
17:59:29
so, should we try to fill it out now, or until tomorrow, to avoid 2 week slip?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:59:54
KDE on aarch64 raw image works fine too. (I know Lukas Brabec also tested it, but I was mid-write of the disk image already, so I double-checked)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:01:00
It's late to ask for testing today, so I propose we re-convene tomorrow for a final decision to give QA a day to recheck.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:01:15
sound fine to me, if releng is ok with it
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:01:32
That feels wrong...
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:01:33
I'd prefer making the call today or slipping
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:01:44
ok
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:02:13
but I suppose we could make it work if needed. just doesn't give too much time...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:02:15
I'm also fine with spending a few hours today testing, if that helps
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:02:16
I would like to check in with IoT and Fedora CoreOS for 1.4 though too
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:02:34
yeah, would be good to get their input
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:02:37
I know thats technically part of this anyway, but is it too late for them to verify its ok?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:02:38
(a few *more* hours) 🙂
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:03:04
for IoT, we have coremodule here
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:03:18
the current IoT matrix is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_41_RC_20241023.1_Summary
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:03:27
define 'few' 😋
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
18:03:38
Yes, IoT is looking good.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:03:40
I somewhat forgot about CoreOS, oops
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:04:57
does we have 1.4 workstation live aarch64?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:05:04
no.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:05:21
We could still ship 1.3 with common bugs.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:05:27
oh, and didnt have it at 1.3 too
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:05:31
so, no regressions
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:05:54
or 1.4 whith the same common bugs
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:06:11
We could also just YOLO 1.4 without further re-testing... :-)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:06:13
no, we made the vnc bug a blocker
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:06:20
we could have that discussion. I am not in favor personally, but we could see what people think?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:06:39
in a few hours openqa should populate lots of those 1.4 results
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:06:39
well, thats a blocker, but we could waive it on the 'late bug' thing
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:06:44
Kamil Páral: Blocker yes, but we *could* waive it as late. Let's not, though.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:06:46
that we could waive. also qualifies as a late blocker.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:06:50
to play devils advocate - is the vnc blocker likely to be resovled if we are no go and then wait ~2 weeks to the next go/no-go date?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:06:53
correct
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:06:58
so the vnc bug exists in 1.4 but there is a work aorund correct
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:07:00
it can be waived
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:07:12
SouthernG: no, it's fixed in 1.4. 1.3 has a workaround
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
18:07:20
the basic sanity checks for 1.4 could be done today (central europe time), right?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:07:25
no. VNC is ok in 1.4, the bug only exists in 1.3
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:07:28
The VNC blocker bug fix is in 1.4
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:07:37
so why not use 1.4
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:07:55
theres a risk of not enough testing I guess
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:08:02
SouthernG: It completed only a few minutes prior to the start of this meeting. It hasn't been fully re-tested.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:08:12
coconut is busy adding results.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:08:13
it seems the openqa finished for 1.4? https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/overview?distri=fedora&version=41&build=Fedora-41-20241024.0&groupid=1
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:08:29
this is a tricky little situation, isnt it?😅
<@jbwillia:fedora.im>
18:08:33
in the past we brought the testing from the previous rc why cant we now
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:08:53
SouthernG: Please read the scrollback; we covered this earlier.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:09:08
yeah, that is what I thought
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:09:12
some of the failures are the clocks bug.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:09:19
a few others need retry/testing.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:09:22
yes, some small number of tests is still running, but otherwise looks good
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:09:45
yeh, maybe a failed needle or something
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:10:04
there are a few failed in openqa that we need to re-run or investigate
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:10:09
there are a few failed tests in openqa that we need to re-run or investigate
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:10:20
Shall we adjourn for 50 minutes, let QA examine the automated test results and then reconvene to decide?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:10:26
+1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:10:27
I'm fine waiting a hour or two, but that makes it really late for some folks. ;)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:10:52
Can we make a decision to rule out a follow on Go/No-Go tomorrow then? At least that leaves us to decide the fate of the next few hours
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:10:57
I am night owl... 😎
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
18:11:17
we can Aoife Moloney
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:11:30
if were not doing another meeting tomorrow, we can decide to run a few tests now for a while, or just call it
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:11:41
let's do it now
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:11:57
I would prefer to decide today if we can...
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:11:59
lruzicka: Please be more specific about "it"
<@conest:transfem.dev>
18:12:21
better safe than sorry..
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:12:25
Aoife Moloney: if you need to head out, I can try and run things... dunno how late it is there.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:12:51
Let's wait some time and I'll restart the tests and see, how many I can fix.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:13:07
proposal: We will not have another Go/No-Go meeting on Friday 25th October. Instead we will allow some time, 1-2 hours (please advise here the amount) to allow QA to do some additional testing on 1.4
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:13:13
lets try Stephen Gallagher's idea and keep meeting open and reconvene in 45min or so to see where we are?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:13:23
+1 to that
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:13:24
nirik: thank you but I have literally nowhere else to be :p
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:13:42
ha. This is the exciting place to be anyhow. ;)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:13:55
riveting!
<@farchord:fedora.im>
18:14:29
How about we have a testing party in the Fedora Social Hour Video Chat channel in the mean time, like a bunch of people waiting for election results!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:14:38
Im ok with this too but its QA who are on the hook here so please let us know if this is something you folks are ok with?
<@conest:transfem.dev>
18:15:21
I, who could not patiently wait for 29th is seeing what the experts talk about. I apologize for any incovenience. This is very exciting for me.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:18:18
ok lets do that then, Ill set the topic to waiting
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:20:09
!topic This meeting is currently in a WAITING period while Fedora QA run some additional testing on RC 1.4. We expect this meeting to resume in one hour
<@robatino:fedora.im>
18:20:23
While waiting, I have a question about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_partitioning_custom_btrfs_preserve_home . It implies that it's not possible to preserve /home when using the 41 Workstation Live. Is that still accurate? I haven't looked at the latest live.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:21:00
FYI, coreos folks say they are ready.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:21:44
excellent, thank you nirik !
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:27:20
kparal gave a cookie to kevin. They now have 690 cookies, 31 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:27:59
Andre Robatino: let's look into that some other day, sorry 🙂
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:30:17
relval size-check done
<@jskladan:fedora.im>
18:42:45
👋 /me lurks while wrangling the little critters to bed
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:10:55
dustymabe gave a cookie to kevin. They now have 691 cookies, 32 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
19:11:20
[@nirik:matrix.scrye.com](https://matrix.to/#/@nirik:matrix.scrye.com)- what to do with all of those cookies
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:11:22
farchord gave a cookie to kevin. They now have 692 cookies, 33 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@jcline:fedora.im>
19:12:10
The cloud stuff looks good on 1.4 FWIW (On Azure, anyway)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:12:14
I plan to open a bakery
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
19:13:57
a bakery that sells cookies but doesn't make them? sounds sus :)
<@smilner:fedora.im>
19:14:24
He's a trend setter.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:14:51
😀
<@farchord:fedora.im>
19:14:55
Hey, we give out software but we don't "make" it XD
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:15:03
ok, so where are we quality folks? ;)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
19:15:51
hey, it's called GNU Make, not GNU Bake
<@farchord:fedora.im>
19:16:24
Yeah but isn't compiling technically "baking"?
<@farchord:fedora.im>
19:16:26
XD
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:19:56
the current status of 1.4 is that OpenQA tested everything it tested with 1.3 and found no new issues. The 1.4 matrices are not yet populated with openqa results, sadly, we're not sure how to make it happen asap. But we see in openqa interface that everything's fine.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:20:10
so every coconut pass in 1.3 is also pass in 1.4
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:20:16
fine == softfailed :D
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:20:37
we've also run basic install sanity tests on most images, and they install fine
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:21:04
they have exactly the same results in 1.3
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:21:07
we did confirm the vnc fix already right?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:21:11
yes
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:21:27
I confirmed it on Server dvd, netinst and Everything netinst
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:21:35
excellent.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:22:14
we have some basic arm install results as well, even though those are slower to perform
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:22:55
So are there gaps/more time needed? or do we feel 1.4 is solid and we can be go with it?
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:23:10
we should go I'd say
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:23:19
Kamil Páral: lruzicka ?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:23:35
Lukas Brabec: coremodule pwhalen do you feel we need more arm tests for 1.4?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:24:25
for x86_64, I think we're reasonably covered
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:24:40
Personally no, I have been working on 1.4 for the last 30 minutes or so with no issues. Haven't logged anything yet, but it looks good from my chair here.
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:27:41
I think the big change was anaconda? I did an install of 1.4 so thats covered. The disk images shouldnt really be affected
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:28:16
I wouldn't say big, the only change related to the blocking deliverables was anaconda
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:28:25
frantisekz gave a cookie to pwhalen. They now have 70 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:28:33
farchord gave a cookie to pwhalen. They now have 71 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
19:28:42
that would be my assessment as well
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:29:50
yeah.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:30:57
we're still waiting for an EC2 sanity check, if I'm not mistaken
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:31:23
after that, I think we're ready
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:32:49
Just to be super clear - we are voting on a reasonably solid, 'freshly minted' RC - 1.4 that the only drawback is the risk that this had time in open testing?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:33:13
yep. It does address the blocker however.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:33:42
and we are confident that this rc is good enough that we wont regret this next week?🤞
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:34:09
such word is not in QA vocabulary 🙂
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:34:27
😅regret? or confident?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:34:36
😅 regret? or confident?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:34:40
regret is there on each page 😄
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:35:41
it would certainly be better to have more time. But I think the risk is low, given that we had enough time for 1.3 and the changes are minimal
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:35:53
also all openqa tests passed and our manual sanity tests passed
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:35:56
1.3 did have a fair bit of time to soak
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:36:01
that sounds reasonable
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:36:37
have we the EC2 results in?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:36:41
EC2 works
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:36:47
thanks lruzicka
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:36:52
kde and workstation x86_64 seem OK
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:36:52
then, it is time.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:36:59
on VM
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:37:13
amoloney gave a cookie to kparal. They now have 75 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:37:13
redoing desktop testings
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:37:44
geraldosimiao: we can wait a few more mins if you want to give an All Clear when youre done
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:37:52
My children will not get sweets for at least a weak, until I have paid for the EC instance.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:38:03
🛳️
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:38:15
My children will not get sweets for at least a week, until I have paid for the EC instance.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:39:09
just a couple more tests here and Im done
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:39:25
np, thank you!
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:40:11
So, is the vnc test one we normally run manually? just wondering why it was found so late... but I know there's a ton of tests to do.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:40:42
no
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:40:45
the vnc test worked in VMs, that's we openqa claimed it works
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:40:50
it works in vms/without 3d accel
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:40:52
the problem was just on bare metal
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:40:59
ah... right ok.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:41:09
The VNC test runs on openQA, but the issue only manifested on bare metal. Peter Boy caught it.
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:41:14
that gets to point if we shouldn't try to leverage virtio in openQa
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:41:20
to get closer to the real workloads
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:41:29
idk if that's stable enough
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:42:11
that gets to point if we shouldn't try to leverage virtio with OpenGL passed through in openQA
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:42:24
gpu passthrough is not easy... but anyhow.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:42:54
farribeiro gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 29 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:42:58
(I didn't mean the whole pci device pass, just the virtualized thingie)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:43:54
ok, finished here
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:45:01
so, then, I guess that covers test coverage and on to go/nogo?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:45:02
I think we need a summary
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:45:33
!info all test matrices are now complete for rc-1.4
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:45:34
a QA summary? František Zatloukal want to write one?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:45:46
!topic Fedora CoreOS & IoT Check-in
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:45:55
ah, a meetbot summary, ok 🙂
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:45:59
Can I confirm CoreOS is good to go?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:46:21
nirik: you were in contact with them, right?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:46:39
oh sorry Kamil Páral , feel free to still author a test matrices summary for the meeting if youd like! otherwise we can keep going :)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:47:13
yes.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:47:36
we can keep going, Aoife 🙂
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:47:43
!info Fedora CoreOS are good to go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:47:56
pwhalen: IoT still a-ok?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:48:01
dusty said: I’m AFK today but I can tell you we’’re ready
<@coremodule:fedora.im>
19:48:35
Yes, IoT is OK!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:48:45
!info Fedora IoT are good to goo too
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:49:00
We are
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:49:14
!topic Go/No Decision
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:49:35
I will now poll each team. Please reply with 'Go' or 'No-Go'
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:49:39
Releng?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:49:48
go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:49:59
FESCo?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:50:00
(since I hope jnsamyak went to sleep)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:50:21
go (unless Stephen Gallagher is still here to say it)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:50:25
Go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:50:34
He also emoji-d it :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:50:37
QA?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:50:40
Go
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:50:45
go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:51:02
!agreed Fedora Linux 41 Final is GO
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:51:29
thanks everyone
<@farchord:fedora.im>
19:51:29
Congrats!
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:51:29
🎉
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:51:34
!info info Fedora Linux 41 Final will release on the current target date 2024-10-29
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:51:51
!action @amoloney to announce decision
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:51:51
geraldosimiao gave a cookie to kparal. They now have 76 cookies, 6 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:52:05
!topic Open Floor
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:52:15
Anything else to talk about?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:52:18
cookie time?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:52:25
Kamil Páral: if you could put in a stable push request with the things from rc 1.4 that would be great.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:52:27
I really wasnt sure how this would go 😅
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:52:42
amoloney gave a cookie to geraldosimiao. They now have 29 cookies, 8 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@kparal:matrix.org>
19:52:45
ok, will do
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:52:53
amoloney has already given cookies to kparal during the F40 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:52:55
farribeiro has already given cookies to geraldosimiao during the F40 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:02
kevin gave a cookie to geraldosimiao. They now have 30 cookies, 9 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:53:05
I'll do the secretary duties around blockers in bz when I get home
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:10
kparal gave a cookie to geraldosimiao. They now have 31 cookies, 10 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
19:53:15
does it count as an October Surprise? 😅
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:21
farribeiro has already given cookies to kparal during the F40 timeframe
<@farchord:fedora.im>
19:53:24
Updated #fedora:fedoraproject.org MOTD.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:25
amoloney has already given cookies to frantisekz during the F40 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:31
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to frantisekz during the F40 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:31
kparal has already given cookies to frantisekz during the F40 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:34
m4rtink gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 63 cookies, 14 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:38
farchord gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 64 cookies, 15 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:53:43
everybody++
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:53:45
Why not :)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:45
Sorry, but Fedora Accounts user 'everybody' does not exist
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:47
kevin gave a cookie to frantisekz. They now have 65 cookies, 16 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:48
m4rtink gave a cookie to kparal. They now have 77 cookies, 7 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:53:51
also, we'd need karma
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:53:55
farribeiro has already given cookies to frantisekz during the F40 timeframe
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:54:02
for https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-69a60846ec
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:54:13
geraldosimiao gave a cookie to amoloney. They now have 54 cookies, 21 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:54:14
farribeiro has already given cookies to amoloney during the F40 timeframe
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:54:18
and then stable request for it (I'll ask when its karmed)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:54:19
Thanks everyone. ;)
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
19:54:40
thank you everybody, and Aoife Moloney for organizing this little party! :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:54:47
huge thank you everyone too!
<@farchord:fedora.im>
19:55:03
Thank you everyone, and specially the QA people!
<@farchord:fedora.im>
19:55:08
I know we don't make it easy on you all!
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:55:08
amoloney gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 30 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:55:40
we ate, and left 'no crumbs' as the kids would say these days 😆
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:55:49
Thanks again all, ending the meeting now!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:55:52
!endmeeting