<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:01:08
!startmeeting Fedora Linux Final Go/No-Go Meeting
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:10
Meeting started at 2025-04-10 17:01:08 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:10
The Meeting name is 'Fedora Linux Final Go/No-Go Meeting'
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:01:23
good morning everyone.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:01:40
good afternoon sir, and others!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:00
Ill just do the boilerplate 'info what this meeting is for' etc
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:03:07
!info the purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F42 Final is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:03:09
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:03:34
!info This is determined in this meeting in a few ways:
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:03:51
!info 1. A release candidate compose is available
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:04:00
!info 2. No remaining blocker bugs
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:09
hi hi
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:04:13
!info 3. Test matrices are fully complete
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:04:20
!info 4. Fedora CoreOS and IoT are ready
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:04:25
!topic Roll Call
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:04:37
feel free to record your presence in this hallowed meeting now :p
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:04:42
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:43
Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:04:46
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:47
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:04:52
!hi
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:04:52
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:53
Derek Enz (derekenz)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:59
Kevin Fenzi (kevin) - he / him / his
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:05:14
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:16
Geraldo S. Simiรฃo Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:05:54
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:57
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@curtiss:matrix.org>
17:05:59
Hello everybody!
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:06:13
hello
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:06:36
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:37
Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:06:39
hello folks!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:00
nice to see everyone....or well, read everyone :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:51
I think we can crack on with the agenda, so first up is whether we have a release candidate to discuss
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:59
!topic Release Candidate Availability
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:12
So, releng & QA, do we have one?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:08:25
We do! 1.1
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:45
a .1 one??? this is a first for me :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:50
excellent
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:09:04
yeah, strange, but here we are. ;)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:07
we have released a 1.1 before...i think once? :D
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:09:08
yeah
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:09:30
Aloha
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:34
its exciting, Ive never seen one in the wild before :p
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:54
quick reminder for me, do I write it as RC-1.1 for the bot?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:10:06
We have. Occasionally.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:07
sorry my brain has deleted that particular phrasing :(
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:35
"RC-1.1" is a correct name for it, yeah
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:43
cool thank you
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:46
!info The release candidate available is RC-1.1
<@jnsamyak:matrix.org>
17:10:56
O/
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:05
!topic Current status - blockers
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:19
!link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/42/final/buglist
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:37
Ill turn this over to our good qa folks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:48
alrighty!
<@frantisekz:fedora.im>
17:12:00
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:12:01
Frantiลกek Zatloukal (frantisekz)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:01
!info let's take a look at proposed final blockers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:17
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2357836
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:17
!topic (2357836) WebUI: list index out of range
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:17
!info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:17
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1852
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:54
current understanding of this: in a small proportion of (possibly webui-only) installs, you can hit a race condition in keyboard layout code that makes the install crash
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:13:06
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:13:08
Lukas Brabec (lbrabec)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:09
it's more likely to happen if you actually configure the keyboard somehow during install, but it can happen even if you don't
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:20
from openQA test history it seems like this hits 1-2% of installs, roughly
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:28
from openQA test history it seems like this hits 1-2% of workstation live installs, roughly
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:13:40
Thats small, but anoying. ;(
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:15:12
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:15:14
Fรกbio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:31
so, this is obviously a conditional blocker case, where it's up to our discretion
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:15:47
I'm not sure how to vote on this. Yeah, it's just a judgement call...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:08
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ#What_about_hardware_and_local_configuration_dependent_issues?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:15
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ#What_about_hardware_and_local_configuration_dependent_issues
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:16:21
I'd be inclined to -1 blocker it because it's so rare, but on the other hand, it looks really bad.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:22
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ#What_about_hardware_and_local_configuration_dependent_issues?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:39
we do have a fix for it, obviously fixing it involves a slip
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:16:55
CommonBugs warning could do?
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:17:05
The bug is going to stable. Inclined to -1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:17:10
I guess the workaround is... 'try again'?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:18
yea
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:17:24
FWIW I haven't seen it, all my VM and bare metal installations were without any issues
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:17:26
you say Bug 2357836?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:39
yes, that's the bug we're on
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:17:47
the upgrade fixed it right?
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:18:00
How long before the fix is applied?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:18:05
I guess I am a weak -1 blocker (but +1 FE if we do slip for some reason we should fix it)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:18:09
but the new version istn at the rc1 ?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:18:34
if we say 'not a blocker' it will not be fixed in the released version.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:18:41
ohh i see
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:18:50
its not a high enough % to feel like we should block on it, my 2c, but I dont love the idea of this affecting user perceptions of the answer life, the universe and everything
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:19:06
I vote with nirik
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:19:27
weak -1 FB and +1 FE
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:19:31
its not a high enough % to feel like we should block on it, my 2c, but I dont love the idea of this affecting user perceptions of the answer to life, the universe and everything
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:20:08
-1FB and +1FE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:01
anyone want to argue for +1 ?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:22:51
Adam, waht you say aboute the criteria?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:23:29
this kind of "30%" of time, violate it?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:23:43
If this only happens like 3 times out of hundred, blocking solely on this is useless.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:24:22
If we have other blockers than sure, add it.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:24:27
this is only webui right?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:36
yeah, I didn't see this at any of all the times I runned the installs
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:24:43
Yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:01
geraldosimiao per the FAQ page i linked earlier, by policy this is a subjective call, we just have to work it out in the meeting like this
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:05
there's not a hard rule
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:15
i think -1 is probably reasonable given the rarity
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:26:28
ok
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:26:31
thanks
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:26:56
thats fine for me
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:27:56
FB -1
<@robatino:fedora.im>
17:28:09
there's the option of removing the anaconda-webui package and running the installer in GTK mode
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:28:31
that's not really discoverable
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:29:15
theres the option to grant zero day to this upgrade with the fix, and run the upgrade at live session
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:29:47
๐ค
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:30:22
oh crap i just realized i have a medical appointment at :50
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:30:25
thats not usually a good idea. The space there is limited.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:30:41
There are work-arounds that could be offered.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:30:47
anyhow, I don't think we have anyone arguing for +1 here.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:31:08
yeah
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:31:13
lets move aheade
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:31:18
ahead
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:31:30
proposed !agreed 2357836 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker as we think the precedence is too low to block on, it's a very uncommon bug. Anyone affected can reboot and try again. However, a freeze exception is granted as obviously it'd be best to fix this race if we slip
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:31:42
adamw: oops. You need to leave now and have someone take over? or can you reschedule?
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:31:47
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:31:51
ack
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:31:52
ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:32:01
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:32:04
Lack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:32:05
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:32:10
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:32:10
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:32:51
#
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:33:12
!agreed 2357836 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this is rejected as a blocker as we think the precedence is too low to block on, it's a very uncommon bug. Anyone affected can reboot and try again. However, a freeze exception is granted as obviously it'd be best to fix this race if we slip
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:33:17
ok can somebody take over?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:33:23
i can participate from phone but not run
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:34:20
I guess I could try? or any other QE folks want to?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:34:57
!info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+0,0,-5) (-boniboyblue, -kparal, -sumantrom, -farribeiro, -geraldosimiao)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:34:57
!topic (2358741) Support for GNOME X sessions was dropped outgrowing the previously accepted scope of the Wayland transition
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:34:57
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358741
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:34:57
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1849
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:34:57
!info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:35:00
Well, we could give it a try, however we'd need more time to do the reasoning.
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:35:32
-5
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:35:39
I am -1 blocker here. Does anyone want to argue for +1?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:35:41
nirik: you are doing great
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:35:49
nope
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:35:49
-1 FB for me, please
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:35:59
-1
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:36:03
I'm still -1 on this.
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:36:16
Revote -1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:36:46
-1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:05
we know someone is very upset at the list...
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:15
but hes allways uppset
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:21
about wayland
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:37:42
-1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:37:44
proposed: !agreed RejectedBlocker(final): This is a engineering design decision and doesn't violate any blocker critera.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:37:58
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:38:01
Ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:38:02
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:38:06
ack
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:38:06
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:38:06
patch
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:38:12
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:38:14
an engineering desing?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:38:21
patch away. OOps. typo.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:38:22
design
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:38:28
Trรชs
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:38:37
Yes
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:38:54
proposed: !agreed RejectedBlocker(final): This is a engineering design decision and doesn't violate any blocker critera.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:39:10
or someone else do it. my client is anoying me.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:39:13
still patch
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:39:27
proposed: !agreed RejectedBlocker(final): This is a engineering design decision and doesn't violate any blocker critera.
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:39:33
proposed: !agreed RejectedBlocker(final): This is an engineering design decision and doesn't violate any blocker critera.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:39:44
sure. ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:39:50
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:39:55
ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:39:58
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:39:59
patch
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:40:05
critera -> criteria
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:40:07
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:40:07
Ack
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:40:13
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:40:17
proposed: !agreed RejectedBlocker(final): This is a engineering design decision and doesn't violate any blocker criteria.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:40:18
man, we just can't type today
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:40:26
oh my, no
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:40:32
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:40:37
patch party
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:40:40
Ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:40:41
final ack? :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:40:46
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:40:51
ack... again.
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:40:54
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:40:57
proposed: !agreed RejectedBlocker(final): This is an engineering design decision and doesn't violate any blocker criteria.
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:41:05
No
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:41:05
now we have it, I hope
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:41:07
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:41:20
You gotta put the bug number in there
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:41:31
ha, so no, we don't have it.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:41:48
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:41:48
Makes it easier on the secretary
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:42:33
I'm with Adam
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:42:34
proposed: !agreed 2358741 - RejectedBlocker(final): This is an engineering design decision and doesn't violate any blocker criteria.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:42:43
hows that?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:42:46
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:42:50
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:42:54
Good enough ๐คฃ
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:42:56
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:43:12
Ackack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:43:21
Double ack
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:43:21
ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:43:28
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:43:34
!agreed 2358741 - RejectedBlocker(final): This is an engineering design decision and doesn't violate any blocker criteria.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:43:47
!topic (2358880) Live install sometimes gets stuck during rsync, launching another application unsticks it
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:43:47
!info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:43:47
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358880
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:43:47
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1850
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:44:48
Another one that happens with about 1-2% of the time.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:44:59
surprise surprise
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:45:08
same as with the first one, I haven't seen it yet...
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:45:20
me neither
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:45:30
This one seems to be vm's only?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:45:39
me neither
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:46
So far yes. It's a bit more common though
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:46:06
And affects all lives (not webui only)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:09
as said on ticket, only found at VM by now
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:23
ฤฉ think
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:32
think
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:40
I think
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:46:49
It's kinda worse in a way because it just hangs, no clear indication that it's broken. But kinda better in a way because you can "fix" it by doing something
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:47:10
yeah, but you might not know that so you wait... and wait...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:47:21
Yeah
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:47:28
this one seems worse to me than the last one...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:20
Eh, if it's really virt only (and possibly qemu/virtio only) that kinda helps, for me
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:48:31
yeah, thats definitely good.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:48:40
commom bugs: "if you think th install is taking too long, try to do something like open another app or hit the meta key"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:50
The combination of the two is kinda sucky for workstation live installs to VM though. About 5% hit one bug or the other in openqa
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:48:58
hmmmm
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:49:54
Sorry I didn't report this sooner ๐ every time it showed up something else was on fire so I just reran the test and figured I'd look at it latet
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:50:00
I guess I would say the same as the last one... weak -1 blocker, but definitely +1 FE if we need to slip (although the fix isn't known, may not be easy to find)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:50:28
Yeah, this feels like it'll be tricky to isolate and fix
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:50:47
we can write a good commom issue about it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:50:48
I'm ok with a -1 on it probably, it sucks but...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:50:58
Kamil Pรกral: wdyt?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:51:31
this rather sucks, but it's also kind of on a thread for me to
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:51:37
this rather sucks, but it's also kind of on a thread for me too
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:51:39
adamw: Kamil said he wont be joining ..
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:51:41
Yes, we should document it well and if we do, we mitigate the impact.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:51:46
so... weak -1 FB, +1 FE
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:51:57
Oh right, forgot
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:52:05
weak -1 FB, +1 FE
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:52:13
Agree with Neal
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:52:22
-1 FB
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:52:22
+1 FE
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:52:29
weak -1FB and +1FE , needs to be documented well
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:52:40
-1 FB, +1 FE
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:52:52
-1 blocker, +1 fe
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:53:41
proposed: !agreed 2358880 - RejectedBlocker(final): this is rejected as a blocker as we think it is too infrequent to block on, it's rare and only on vm installs. Anyone affected can reboot and try again. However, a freeze exception is granted as obviously it'd be best to fix this if we slip
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
17:53:50
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:53:55
really sorry Im going to need to step away for 10 mins max, should be back real soon
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:54:12
ack
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
17:54:13
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:54:19
Ack
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
17:54:20
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:54:20
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:54:21
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:38
Um, oh. Is this the right bug number?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:44
I think we closed my report as a dupe
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:57
We should set status on the one that isn't a dupe
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:54:58
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358880
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:01
Oh nm
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:55:04
thats the open one...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:04
That was the keyboard bug
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:05
Ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:55:19
!agreed 2358880 - RejectedBlocker(final): this is rejected as a blocker as we think it is too infrequent to block on, it's rare and only on vm installs. Anyone affected can reboot and try again. However, a freeze exception is granted as obviously it'd be best to fix this if we slip
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:23
Doing stuff on a phone is hard!
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:55:32
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:55:35
so, we have a bunch of verified ones, do we want to go through those?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:55:42
and one thats going to be harder.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:56
Maybe just a single info that they're all verified fixed in rc
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:56:27
!info 5 verified accepted blockers that are fixed in RC-1.1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:56:38
!info Accepted Blocker, libdnf, NEW
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:56:38
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2354865
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:56:38
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1812
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:56:38
!topic (2354865) libdnf (DNF4) should read DNF5 repo overrides
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:57:11
I think we want to consider waiving this as hard to fix
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:57:28
yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:57:29
Sorry checking in at the clinic
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:57:31
yep. Was just gonna suggest that. Keep as blocker, but waive later as too hard to fix
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:57:36
given the comments bby the devs
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:58:12
anyone want to argue this isn't a blocker?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:59:17
We have already decided this to be a blocker :D
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:59:33
Me too
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:59:34
yeah
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:59:44
so lets waive it now
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:00:11
and document it
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:00:28
hard-to-fix waive -> blocker for F43 Beta. Sounds reasonable to me.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:32
We could reconsider blocker status. But waiving on the whole seems reasonable. It seems the "fix" will be porting g-s to libdnf5 but it's not really reasonable to land that in f42 now
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:00:38
children sleeping? no way :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:46
I'm guessing this is also present in 41?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:00:51
don't be naive
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:53
since we went to dnf5 in 41...
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:01:23
I believe so, yes, in F41 too
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:01:34
ok, the waive will come later in the meeting. This is just deciding it's a blocker. ;)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:34
so for process...we would be waiving this under "Difficult to fix blocker bugs - bugs which it may not be practical to fix within a reasonable time frame for the release to be made (due to e.g. complexity or resource constraints)"
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:43
oh, sorry
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:01:47
afaik
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:01:50
ok
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:50
well, wait. isn't it now we do this?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:53
let me check the script
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:02:02
let's go ahead then
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:02:12
oops
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:02:16
lets wait then
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:27
sigh, pagure
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:02:36
it's really not loaded.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:39
i think we would usually do it here
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:02:51
ok
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:02:56
are we go yet? :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:04
we're working on it!
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:03:10
Hi Matthew
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:15
yeah, i think accepted blocker review is the appropriate place to consider waivers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:39
so...i'm +1 to waive this to 43 beta
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:03:48
ok lets vote
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:03:57
proposed !agreed 2354865 - We agree this is a blocker, but are waiving it under the 'difficult to fix' clause as developers do not wish to fix this in f42.
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:03:59
+1 waive
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
18:04:08
+1 waive
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:04:09
+1 naive waive
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:04:09
sorry, getting ahead of myself
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:04:11
+1 waie
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:04:15
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:04:16
+1 wave
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
18:04:19
+1 & ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:04:20
+1 waive
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:04:20
+1 waive
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
18:04:21
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:04:24
+1 waive
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:04:25
Ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:04:28
+1 ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:04:35
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:04:40
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:04:43
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:04:50
well
<@lbrabec:matrix.org>
18:04:50
ack
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
18:04:57
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:05:04
adamw: if you are back at a keyboard, feel free to take over. ;)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:05:10
its a mix LOL
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:05:15
only while i'm sitting in the waiting room
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:25
i might say proposed !agreed 2354865 - blocker status is waived to Fedora 43 Beta under the "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" category per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Exceptional_cases , as the intended fix (porting gnome-software to libdnf5) is not appropriate to land in Fedora 42 at this stage of development
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:06:39
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
18:06:44
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:06:48
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:07:04
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:07:07
ack
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
18:07:12
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:18
!agreed 2354865 - blocker status is waived to Fedora 43 Beta under the "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" category per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Exceptional_cases , as the intended fix (porting gnome-software to libdnf5) is not appropriate to land in Fedora 42 at this stage of development
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:24
ok, back to Aoife Moloney
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:07:30
and im back
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:30
well, let's note
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:07:36
๐
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:07:36
that was verrrry good timing!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:36
!info with that, there are no unaddressed final blockers
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:07:38
(note that the proposed "fix" doesn't help for plasma discover)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:56
Conan Kudo well, presumably the answer would be the same? port it to dnf5...
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:08:01
there's a bunch of accepted FE's and proposed FE's, but we can skip those. ;)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:08:16
yeah, we don't need to do those
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:08:56
shall we continue to test matrices then?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:09:16
I'll also note I am sad that I didn't get to looking at initial setup on Xfce before now... so it will be broken in 42. ;( ๐ข
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:09:35
we'll get to it for F43
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:09:49
or maybe make a special build for people later
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:10:25
at least it's easy now to make images :)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:10:58
respins...
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:11:03
:)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:11:32
sure, lots of options... anyhow, lets move on
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:12:01
!topic Current Status - Test Matrices
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:12:13
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_42_Test_Results
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:13:02
are we in good coverage for testing? or are there tests needed in cloud (and other architectures)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:14:46
Sorry, having technical issues at the clinic. I appear to have no blood
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:15:00
I hate it when that happens.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:15:01
I had a quick look at the matrices earlier and they mostly look good
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:15:12
how are you with garlic?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:15:17
I think we were still missing arm iso USB tests?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:15:17
:p
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:15:21
I covered some of the missing aarch64 tests (usb etc)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:17:40
So, I think we look pretty good, but I could be missing how to read these. ;)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:17:48
so are we comfortable to confirm that we have sufficient testing coverage?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:18:52
Ok I'm out
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:18:59
Let me take a quick look
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:19:10
I believe we have very good coverage
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:19:22
I think we have yes
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:19:38
We should also not forget IoT and CoreOS, which are separate
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:19:50
IoT matrix is here, I believe: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_42_RC_20250409.0_General
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:20:10
and for CoreOS, we need to ask somebody from the team
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:20:32
regarding general Quality coverage, I believe we're good to go
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:20:45
marmijo I think was going to try and make it here to represent coreos?
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:20:48
Right, IoT coverage looks good
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:58
Yeah, all looks good to me
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
18:21:01
I think we have good coverage ... FCOS looked good from the test day perspective
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:11
We're missing fcoe, that's all
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
18:21:18
!hi
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:18
And that's hardware constrained
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:21:20
Michael Armijo (marmijo)
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
18:21:23
CoreOS is good to go!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:24
So, matrices look good
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:21:35
fcos are in good shape, I was talking to dusty mabe earlier
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:35
IoT and coreos checkin come next
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:38
Separate topics
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:22:03
oops sorry was ahead of myself
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:22:10
sorry, I didn't know the protocol ๐
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:23:52
a notable thing missing from the coverage is macos dual-boot, we no longer have the hardware
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:24:41
however, I believe the days of that test case is over, and will propose to demote it after this cycle, so I don't consider it a big issue
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:24:53
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:25:06
Oops, I missed that. Didn't we already propose that?
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:25:18
I haven't, no
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:26:58
Aoife Moloney: shall we move on?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:27:11
yes, ready when you all are!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:27:25
Ah, well
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:27:50
or maybe, ready when Adam is ;)
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:28:13
XD
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:28:16
๐ค
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:28:48
I'm fine, don't wait on me...
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:29:13
(aside from the lack of blood)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:29:32
!info We have sufficient test coverage in place for F42 final release candidate rc-1.1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:29:46
It's okay, they found some in the end
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:29:48
!topic Fedora CoreOS and IoT Release Readiness Check-in
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:30:20
pwhalen: is IoT prepared for the release?
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:30:38
IoT is good, test coverage complete
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:30:59
dustymabe: is Fedora CoreOS ready for the release?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
18:31:12
Aoife Moloney: I think we're good to go.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:31:15
If Dusty is not about, someone else from Fedora CoreOS can also confirm :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:31:18
yaaay!
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
18:31:27
+1 from me for Fedora CoreOS
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:31:33
!info Both Fedora CoreOS and IoT are release ready
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:31:44
okely dokely, its time to poll!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:31:59
!topic Go/No-Go decision
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:32:15
Wheeee!
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:32:21
๐ฅ
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:32:28
big time
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:32:28
!info I will now poll each group - Releng, QA & FESCo. Please relpy Go or No-Go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:32:33
Releng?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:32:36
๐ฉgo
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:32:42
QA?
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:32:47
go
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:32:48
go
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
18:32:51
go
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
18:32:55
go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:32:57
And finally, FESCo?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:32:59
๐
go
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:33:03
Go! ๐
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
18:33:12
GO
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:33:41
!agreed Fedora Linux 42 Final is GO and will be shipped on Tuesday, April 15 on the early target
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:33:44
extra bonus GO
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:33:57
๐
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:34:04
๐
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:34:07
!action @amoloney to announce decision and update the schedule accordingly
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:34:09
๐ข
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:34:09
it's a tax day miracle ๐ธ
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
18:34:10
๐ป
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:34:16
๐
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:34:17
thanks for everyone's hard work
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:34:19
well done everyone!
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:34:29
๐ซ
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
18:34:32
๐ณ๏ธ
<@sumantrom:fedora.im>
18:34:36
thanks everyone for testing!!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:34:38
and early, rc2-1.1 release!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:34:45
an early, rc2-1.1 release!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:34:51
๐
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:35:00
!topic Open Floor
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:35:14
final few moments to air out anything else about this release?
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:36:20
thank you everyone!!!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:36:29
is there anything specific I should note to the website folks too actually?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:37:09
we'll need to update the website to take down the fedora kde spin thing now
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:37:22
yes, thank you
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:37:29
that needs to be moved to edition part
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:37:30
I think thats all ready/in process... but we can check with them
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:37:35
cookie for everyone
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:37:46
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to amoloney during the F41 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:37:50
geraldosimiao gave a cookie to mattdm. They now have 169 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@kparal:matrix.org>
18:37:51
this should get updated and KDE added: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Editions
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:38:04
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to derekenz during the F41 timeframe
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:38:07
yup that too
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:38:08
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to ngompa during the F41 timeframe
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:38:15
there's a ticket about a proper web icon for kde edition too
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:38:31
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to kparal during the F41 timeframe
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:38:34
ack, will follow up with that and we can continue with the to-do dicsussion in the release-day chat room. Let me know if anyone is not in there that wants to/should be in there
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:38:42
geraldosimiao has already given cookies to kevin during the F41 timeframe
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:38:46
๐๏ธ
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:38:56
farribeiro gave a cookie to kparal. They now have 82 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:38:59
with that, and in record time, we are done!!
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:39:15
farribeiro gave a cookie to mattdm. They now have 170 cookies, 6 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:39:19
thank you all again for your continued hard work each and every fedora release
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:39:22
farribeiro gave a cookie to amoloney. They now have 77 cookies, 23 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:39:23
!endmeeting
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:39:23
farribeiro gave a cookie to ngompa. They now have 166 cookies, 19 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle