16:04:06 #startmeeting f19alpha-blocker-review-6 16:04:06 Meeting started Wed Sep 18 16:04:06 2013 UTC. The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:04:06 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:04:06 #meetingname f19alpha-blocker-review-6 16:04:06 The meeting name has been set to 'f19alpha-blocker-review-6' 16:04:06 #topic Roll Call 16:04:12 #chair kparal adamw 16:04:12 Current chairs: adamw kparal tflink 16:04:28 * pschindl is here 16:04:30 * mkrizek is here 16:04:35 * pwhalen is here 16:04:43 * roshi is here 16:05:04 * kparal 16:05:20 woah, lots of people 16:06:28 ahoyhoy 16:06:35 time to get started with the always exciting boilerplate 16:06:40 Why are we here? 16:06:40 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. 16:06:46 We'll be following the process outlined at: 16:06:46 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:06:52 The bugs up for review today is available at: 16:06:52 #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 16:06:58 The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 16:06:59 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Alpha_Release_Criteria 16:07:05 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Final_Release_Criteria 16:07:08 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Beta_Release_Criteria 16:07:11 hrm 16:07:13 that would be out of date 16:07:15 #undo 16:07:15 Removing item from minutes: 16:07:16 #undo 16:07:16 Removing item from minutes: 16:07:19 #undo 16:07:19 Removing item from minutes: 16:07:29 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Alpha_Release_Criteria 16:07:49 .moar roshi spam 16:07:49 here spam, have some more roshi 16:07:59 wow, that order was backwards 16:08:03 tflink: I do the same mistake all the time :) 16:08:05 .moar spam roshi 16:08:05 here roshi, have some more spam 16:08:20 well, now you went and made spam think I was all into them 16:08:26 #info Up for review today, we have: 16:08:34 #info 0 Proposed Blockers 16:08:34 #info 8 Accepted Blockers 16:08:34 #info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions 16:08:34 #info 10 Accepted Freeze Exceptions 16:09:14 looking good! 16:09:34 since we have no proposed blockers today, any objections to starting with the proposed FE? 16:09:58 go ahead 16:10:39 #topic (1007448) Anaconda in netinst won't proceed to next screen (or is very slow) 16:10:42 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007448 16:10:45 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, VERIFIED 16:11:14 +1 fe 16:11:17 +1 16:11:17 +1 fe 16:11:21 fe 16:11:36 the title is misleading, it's just slow 16:11:52 .moar iron 1007448 16:11:52 here 1007448, have some more iron 16:11:53 but it's already pushed in anaconda I guess, so this is an academic discussion 16:12:21 proposed #agreed 1007448 - AcceptedFreezeException - While not a release blocking issue, this bug is an annoyance and would be good to fix before f20 alpha release. A tested fix would be considered past freeze 16:12:27 ack 16:12:28 ack 16:12:29 ack 16:12:36 who's the secretary btw? 16:12:38 ack 16:12:41 #agreed 1007448 - AcceptedFreezeException - While not a release blocking issue, this bug is an annoyance and would be good to fix before f20 alpha release. A tested fix would be considered past freeze 16:12:52 kparal: sounds like we have a volunteer :) I forgot to ask 16:12:59 I got it :) 16:13:05 roshi: great 16:13:20 * roshi will actually do it today this time - since he has bz access 16:13:55 #topic (1009132) updates-plugin-WARNING **: failed to download: The backend exited unexpectedly. 16:13:58 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009132 16:14:01 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-settings-daemon, NEW 16:15:00 we might also tag this with FinalBlocker perhaps? 16:15:08 +1 FE 16:15:17 +1 iron 16:15:33 wouldn't it be a beta blocker? 16:15:54 +1 FE 16:15:56 tflink: I see only "Release-blocking desktops must notify the user of available updates, but must not do so when running as a live image. " in Beta 16:16:11 I thought there was a beta criterion for all graphical update methods 16:16:38 the criterion listed in the bug is an alpha IMHO 16:16:39 I don't see it 16:17:02 mkrizek: it is, but read last paragraph in comment 1 16:17:23 the problem is that it's very unclear what is 'default' 16:17:31 gnome has several 'default' update apps 16:17:34 yeah, I was about to wonder what the default was for gnome 16:18:09 I guess the last time we actually took it as a blocker, because we said that if there is no clear default, all methods must work 16:18:11 right, adamw ? 16:18:22 but I don't know whether it was Alpha or later milestone 16:18:36 i think f20 is a bit 'special' now we have multiple graphical methods 16:18:40 * adamw tries to catch up 16:18:51 I'm not finding the criterion I was thinking of 16:18:56 I'd be OK with postponing this bug into later milestone. but I think it should be a blocker, at least Final 16:18:58 the criterion is really written under the assumption there's exactly one 'blessed' graphical update tool (at least per-desktop) 16:19:43 now we have two the question would be 'which is default?' 16:20:03 I suspect that it will be "gnome software" at some point, if that isn't the case already 16:20:07 i haven't run any recent f20 builds; which of gnome-software or PK are you more likely to run into first? which one is run when an update notification pops up? 16:20:15 but it would be nice if they didn't keep adding update avenues 16:20:16 adamw: three. gnome-software as well? 16:20:18 tflink: what's the case *right now* is what maters for alpha 16:20:25 this is gnome-software, isn't it? 16:20:28 yep 16:20:32 "Updates aren't installed when I try to update with gnome-software" 16:20:36 is hughsie still around? 16:20:55 oh, I thought this is the 'update on reboot' approach 16:21:14 pschindl: ? 16:21:43 okay, hi all 16:21:45 hughsie: what's the default graphical method for installing updates in gnome for f20? 16:21:52 PK or gnome-software? 16:22:23 to clarify: not 'what is the planned default for final', but 'what would be considered the default *as of right now*' 16:22:29 tflink, well, if we're shipping gnome-software in comps (which i think we are) then it has to be the latter really 16:22:42 * adamw grabs an f20 live 16:22:49 hughsie: and is "reboot at install updates" in gnome-shell user menu equivalent to "restart & install" in gnome-software? 16:22:50 you need to use gnome-settings-daemon and gnome-softwre from f20 koji for testing tho 16:22:50 bah, that's not the answer I wanted to hear 16:22:56 kparal, yup 16:23:21 well, the "reboot and install updates" menu item is gone in gnome-shell for f20 16:23:23 kparal: neither of them will necessarily hit this path, though. 16:23:31 so we had to have something trigger the offline update 16:24:03 if you're talking about #1009132 it's just a bug in either PK or yum 16:24:21 it would be the same between either the old "reboot and install" menu item and for gnome-software 16:24:24 it's ust the mechanism 16:24:46 hughsie: yes, we're talking about 1009132, question is whether it blocks alpha 16:25:04 I just want to mention, that the bug is filed against the version from koji. Because the g-s-d on rc3 doesn't even try to update. 16:25:36 so as of rc3 the status is that gnome-packagekit online update works OK, gnome-software and offline updates don't work at all? 16:25:41 pschindl, yup, to get that far you need koji 16:25:52 i'm trying to reproduce now, but got hit by the dhcp bug 16:26:00 but if it's the default, isn't that still a blocker? 16:26:14 or is the default expected to change before f20 release? 16:26:23 adamw, you can still use gpk-update-viewer manually, just all the notifications open up gnome-software now 16:26:26 if it has to be default for alpha, then it's blocker. 16:27:12 fwiw, " The backend exited unexpectedly." in the context of Fedora means "yum threw a backtrace" 16:27:16 yeah...if all the notifications open gnome-software, it's hard to argue PK is the 'default' :( 16:27:21 gnome software appears to be on the rc2 desktop live 16:27:40 adamw, sure, i think instance i would probably say g-s is the default 16:27:44 * adamw notes he did have a proposal in ages ago to not require graphical updates to work at alpha 16:27:57 and that means that all updates have to be done offline (unless yo use yum on the command line) 16:27:59 yeah, that sounds sensical 16:28:09 I have a hard time believing that alpha users can't use the CLI 16:28:17 so https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009132 is an important bug to fix 16:28:26 but i don't know if it qualifies as an alpha blocker 16:28:32 as you can still use yum 16:28:38 per the criteria as they stand it pretty clearly does 16:28:42 * hughsie assumes you can use yum 16:28:45 hughsie: with the way that the criteria are currently written, it's a clear blocker 16:29:03 pschindl, can you reproduce #1009132 reliably? 16:29:15 "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with yum and with the default graphical package manager in all release-blocking desktops." 16:29:27 tflink, then it's a blocker, although i'm not sure about the rationale of it 16:29:58 * adamw is trying to find that proposal for weakening it, but can't. maybe i never sent it. 16:29:59 hughsie: I think so. I've reproduced it at least three times 16:30:01 hughsie: yeah, that's what adamw was hinting at 16:30:11 i remember it was sitting on my todo list forever 16:30:13 or outright saying, as am I 16:30:27 pschindl, if i add some reprocing instructions to the bug, can you try pls 16:30:32 if you refuse to use the CLI, maybe you shouldn't be using alpha 16:30:39 * hughsie is fighting with a VM 16:30:41 so at this point we either take it as a blocker or propose revising the criterion on the fly 16:30:42 hughsie: I can 16:31:19 I'm for criterion revision 16:31:37 * kparal is OK with revising it 16:31:40 +1 for revision 16:31:41 yeah, change criteria so that graphical is moved to beta 16:31:41 yeah, i'm obviously in favour. i know viking-ice is as well, i think he suggested it in the first place. 16:31:43 +1 for revising the criterion 16:31:54 +1 for revision 16:32:02 what do we want to revise? 16:32:25 IIRC, the old proposal was to have CLI @ alpha, and default graphical @ beta 16:32:32 knock off teh second half of the criterion for alpha: 16:32:39 "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with yum." 16:32:42 I'm not sure that moving graphical to final would be wise 16:32:46 actually, while we're at it, we could genericize the text: 16:32:56 pschindl, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1009132#c2 16:33:00 "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default console package manager." 16:33:03 (dnf!) 16:33:14 then we stick the old wording in at Beta, yeah, not Final. 16:33:15 would we be proposing the graphical criterion for final, then? 16:33:19 i'd say beta. 16:33:23 tflink: both are required in alpha now 16:33:29 yeah, I meant beta 16:33:36 mkrizek: yep, that's what we've been discussing 16:33:42 but we can argue beta/final on the list, for purpose of this meeting we only have to agree on 'not alpha' 16:34:01 yep 16:34:41 proposed #agreed change the F20 alpha updates criterion to : "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default console package manager." 16:35:00 ack 16:35:02 ack 16:35:21 who wants the action to propose the graphical criterion for beta? 16:36:07 moar ack/nak/patch? 16:36:24 ack 16:36:47 ack 16:37:26 adamw: I assume you're OK with the proposal since I copied the text from you? 16:37:36 ack 16:37:37 sorry 16:37:44 #agreed change the F20 alpha updates criterion to : "The installed system must be able to download and install updates with the default console package manager." 16:37:44 i'll take the action 16:37:58 #action adamw to propose new graphical updates criterion for f20 beta 16:38:25 hughsie: thanks for the info and help 16:38:38 back to the original issue - fe or not fe? 16:38:43 tflink, np 16:38:43 +1 fe 16:38:48 +1 fe 16:38:54 +1 fe 16:38:57 -1 FE 16:39:11 messing with updates mechanisms after freeze should only happen with blockers 16:39:23 other votes? 16:39:25 do we even have to mess with it now if it's been moved to beta? 16:39:34 tflink: can it break it when it's broken already? 16:39:35 as an fe, maybe 16:39:43 kparal: depends on where the fix is 16:39:48 +1 fe, seems a bit academic 16:39:50 sorry for being late - meeting clash :( reading logs 16:40:04 tflink: i'd agree with -1 if it wasn't entirely broken at present 16:40:07 if it doesn't work already, I don't see any harm in accepting a fix 16:40:18 if the fix touched yum path in any way i'd be -1 16:40:45 proposed #agreed 1009132 - AcceptedFreezeException - While graphical updates are not required for alpha, fixing it would be a good move. A tested fix would be considered past freeze. 16:40:55 adamw, i don't know what the backtrace looks like yet, ut i'm currently thinking it's a PK bug somewhere 16:41:05 ack 16:41:05 ack 16:41:09 er 16:41:14 did we agree on rejectedblocekr yet? 16:41:15 adamw: or pk. if it was just gnome-software, I'd be less -1 16:41:17 if not, patch for that 16:41:18 ack 16:41:24 no, it wasn't proposed as blocker 16:41:34 tflink, well, i can certainly work around the problem in g-s, but i'd rather find the actual bug 16:41:37 unless someone proposed it since the start of the meeting 16:41:56 tflink: no, but I did add BetaBlocker tag 16:41:57 I don't think there was a proposal for it 16:42:03 hughsie: I suspect it'll be academic, though. RC4 should be the last alpha compose and that's already started 16:42:16 tflink: you use the "s" word? 16:42:23 yep 16:42:28 ack 16:42:35 .flog tflink for using 'the s word' 16:42:58 adamw: do you think it needs RejectedBlocker? 16:43:00 .fire tflink 16:43:00 adamw fires tflink 16:43:07 tflink: oh, right, sorry 16:43:09 my bad 16:43:25 wow, it's been what ... 3 weeks since I was last fired? 16:43:36 heh 16:43:39 #agreed 1009132 - AcceptedFreezeException - While graphical updates are not required for alpha, fixing it would be a good move. A tested fix would be considered past freeze. 16:43:59 * Viking-Ice sneaks in late... 16:44:09 ok, that is the last of the proposed FEs 16:44:13 on my list, anyways 16:44:25 moving on to the accepted blockers which aren't already VERIFIED 16:44:34 of which there are a grand total of 1 16:44:42 #topic (1008788) text install fails - reboots after completing all spokes and hitting 'c' 16:44:45 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008788 16:44:48 #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED 16:44:48 not much to say here 16:44:56 the fix is in a new anaconda build, which is done 16:45:04 #info a fix is in a new anaconda build, which is done 16:45:15 and it should also fix ks one reported by pwhalen 16:45:16 #info waiting on RC4 for final verification 16:45:19 rc4 build is ongoing 16:45:24 did we actually test the fix? 16:45:41 not even sure what the fix was but it sounds so from the comments 16:46:01 pschindl tried the patch 16:46:16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008788#c6 16:46:27 jreznik: if that's the fix that was pushed, yes 16:46:53 but IIRC there were mutiple options for the fix and part of the holdup was deciding which route to take 16:47:08 I think that's why sbueno wouldn't push the fix yesterday, anyways 16:47:11 s/the/a 16:48:01 https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/anaconda-patches/2013-September/005998.html 16:48:05 is the thread discussing it 16:48:10 but as far as I know, only one patch was sent for review 16:48:29 pschindl: which one have you tried? the one reviewed? 16:48:51 otherwise - if anybody else can try it quickly, it would be nice (the actual build) 16:49:40 it sounds like that's the patch pschindl tried 16:49:44 or close to it, anyways 16:50:11 I can try a quick boot.iso build after the meeting 16:50:24 so if it is busted, we figure it out before RC4 lands 16:50:40 would be great, thanks but I hope it's ok 16:50:40 sry. My NetworkManager seems to be broken right now and I can't get to the mail :( So I can't confirm which patch was pushed 16:51:21 pschindl: hub to spoke, 2. option was implemented 16:51:49 bcl tested the fix 16:51:59 assuming I'm reading this thread correctly 16:52:16 so if it was long patch, you tried the pushed one, if possible one-liner, than not :) 16:52:17 I think I tested the first option 16:54:02 it sounds like building a boot.iso quick post-meeting would be prudent 16:55:33 anything else on this bug? 16:55:44 if not, it's time for 16:55:50 #topic Open Floor 16:56:03 anything else to bring up now? 16:56:19 other than preparing for a potentially long night :) 16:56:35 i386 ami is covered, so nothing specific now and let's wish rc4 is working and final one ;) 16:57:37 and no more 's word' - I've jinxed us enough for one day :-D 16:57:50 if there's nothing else 16:58:00 * tflink sets fuse for (0,5] minutes 16:59:30 #info if needed, the next blocker review meeting will be 2013-09-25 @ 16:00 UTC 16:59:39 Thanks for coming, everyone! 16:59:45 * tflink will send out minutes shortly 16:59:48 #endmeeting