16:01:37 #startmeeting F21-blocker-review 16:01:37 Meeting started Mon Oct 27 16:01:37 2014 UTC. The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:37 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:01:37 #meetingname F21-blocker-review 16:01:37 The meeting name has been set to 'f21-blocker-review' 16:01:38 #topic Roll Call 16:01:47 who's ready for some blockery goodness! 16:01:51 * pschindl is here 16:01:55 * satellit listening 16:01:58 * kparal here 16:02:18 * jskladan lurks 16:02:34 * pwhalen is here 16:03:05 ahoyhoy 16:03:14 sweet, good showing :) 16:03:17 #topic Introduction 16:03:17 Why are we here? 16:03:17 #info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs. 16:03:21 #info We'll be following the process outlined at: 16:03:24 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting 16:03:26 #info The bugs up for review today are available at: 16:03:28 #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current 16:03:31 #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at: 16:03:33 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Alpha_Release_Criteria 16:03:37 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria 16:03:39 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Final_Release_Criteria 16:03:55 got 4 blockers today 16:03:57 first up: 16:03:58 #topic (1157657) DeviceTreeError: failed to scan disk sdb 16:03:58 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157657 16:03:58 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 16:05:06 i asked in #anaconda about this a few minutes ago but no reply yet 16:05:17 i'd like to see if it happens here as well at least, but it'll have to wait till after the meeting 16:07:15 just a note: it might depend whether I used lvm or not in the layout 16:07:31 which I don't remember :) 16:07:40 i used lvm in my tests but didn't actually test a 'normal' install with one of the test disks after removing the fwraid 16:07:53 i immediately turned them into an hwraid array instead, to run that test 16:08:21 it was not with "one of them", all of them were present, I just removed the raid volume in bios 16:08:30 and anaconda crashed on start 16:09:18 ah, ok. i'll try the same thing and see 16:09:57 i believe we usually reject bugs as blockers when you don't remove the raid config or connect one device of a raid set, but i think you did things correctly here so it seems at least potentially blockerish 16:10:02 i'd say probably +1 if it's reproducible 16:10:10 though it is the kind of thing that's a pain when it comes up late 16:10:29 +1 if it's easy to repro... 16:11:33 I'll try to repro once again during this meeting 16:13:54 it'd be really nice to have input from the devs, but, nothing yet... 16:14:05 so punt and vote in the bug? 16:15:22 * adamw takes a look at the trace just in case he can see anything 16:15:55 * kparal will need at least 15 more minutes 16:16:32 this time I'm trying raid0 16:17:01 kparal: did you use the updates.img for the RAID bug when testing this bit? or not? 16:17:38 adamw: this one https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156614#c4 . but only during installation, not during the subsequent boot. 16:17:47 now thinking about it, that was an oversight 16:18:03 I should have applied it in both cases 16:18:22 I'll check 16:18:26 yeah, it'd be good to test with that 16:18:36 good call, thanks 16:18:52 i guess punt and vote in bug, then, though i'd really like to get things done afap :) 16:19:07 * adamw is secretaryizing 16:19:53 proposed #agreed - 1157657 - Punt - This requires more testing before voting. Please test and vote in bug. 16:20:11 ack 16:21:36 ack 16:21:37 #agreed - 1157657 - Punt - This requires more testing before voting. Please test and vote in bug. 16:21:41 #topic (1157685) Anaconda does not identify Workstation Live Beta image as neither Beta, nor Workstation 16:21:44 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157685 16:21:47 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 16:22:03 as mentioned in the bug, -1 on this 16:22:12 same here 16:22:14 -1 16:22:35 I'd be +1 if it identified itself incorrectly though, claiming to be Ubuntu or something crazy 16:23:40 votes? 16:23:43 well, I reported this because I was confused to see "welcome to Fedora 21" instead of "welcome to Fedora 21 Beta". so I think it is confusing. but hey, nothing serious 16:23:57 pschindl: jskladan pwhalen ? 16:24:15 I was so used to the beta screen that I've found weird the that "Beta" word suddenly disappeared :) 16:24:30 I don't think it has to be blocker. 16:24:37 But it is confusing. 16:24:49 -1 16:25:05 what about missing Workstation, that is also not against the spirit of the criterion? 16:25:29 -1, whats needed to fix? 16:26:11 proposed #agreed - 1157685 - RejectedBlocker - While this bug is slightly confusing, it doesn't directly violate any criteria. 16:26:24 ack 16:26:33 * jskladan yay for quite carefull wordings :) 16:27:01 ^^ack 16:27:07 I didn't find it confusing, fwiw 16:27:26 ack 16:27:35 ack 16:27:40 #agreed - 1157685 - RejectedBlocker - While this bug is slightly confusing, it doesn't directly violate any criteria. 16:27:49 #topic (1154347) Anaconda fails to recognize local standard SATA disks after secure-erase 16:27:52 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154347 16:27:55 #info Proposed Blocker, device-mapper-multipath, NEW 16:29:36 these comments are blog post length 16:30:51 you can ignore 'em 16:31:11 it boils down to, multipathd erroneously decides his disks are part of a multipath config and no-one knows why yet. 16:31:18 we're waiting to hear back from the multipath maintainer 16:31:25 has anyone else run into it yet? 16:32:24 haven't heard from anyone, but it's not a traceback so we can't rely on other reports being automatically duped 16:32:38 we'd have to look through other bugs of the same general type and try to spot erroneous multipath in the description or logs 16:33:20 * roshi isn't sure how to vote on this without some form of reproduction 16:33:41 if push came to shove i'd be -1 at this point, but i'd really like to hear from the multipath guy 16:33:50 i'll try emailing him directly today 16:34:05 works for me 16:34:32 cmurf did file: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114770 16:34:33 is this something we can defer until wednesday? or should we vote now? 16:34:37 which looks sort of up the same alley 16:35:25 i'd really want to have determinations on as many bugs as possible today or at least tomorrow, but this one is in the category where it probably makes sense to spin even if we don't get a fix as it may well be fudgable 16:35:42 yeah 16:36:17 I'd like to get as many id'd today too 16:36:49 * roshi leans -1 since there's no traceback or reproducers at this point 16:37:03 I'd either skip this one, or be -1 now - since it does not seem like we have enough information to say what is actually happening and why (as far as I understand it) 16:37:25 it does feel related to 1114770 though 16:37:29 they have the same smell 16:37:51 yeah 16:38:00 note a comment in 1114770: "Also sometimes causes anaconda to bogusly claim no disks are found: see dup bug 1114783 for that manifestation.: 16:39:39 are we allowed to have mdadm crashes and selinux denials during installation? I just received one 16:41:39 installer runs in permissive mode so it's not unusual for denials to happen, shouldn't cause any problems 16:41:50 ah, good 16:42:05 in general just seeing something 'weird' in logs in installer will never be a blocker per se, it's always functional 16:42:29 so if the mdadm crash causes something in the criteria to actually not work, that's bad, but in itself it doesn't mean blocker 16:42:37 so, I'm counting I think 3 -1's 16:43:04 well, cmurf's bug sure looks like a reproducer or at least another case of d-m-multipath erroneously finding a multipath device 16:43:14 so i'm much less -1, though would still like some input from the devs 16:43:49 I'm not a hard -1 by any means 16:45:22 "no disks detected" site:bugzilla.redhat.com isn't finding any other candidates atm 16:45:29 but that's a fairly rough guess 16:46:19 if we count cmurf's issue as a reproducer, it means I much more likely to vote +1 16:47:48 i *really* want to hear from the dev before voting on this :/ i think i'm gonna say punt till we get some input 16:47:59 yeah 16:48:09 * roshi is uneasy voting with such little info 16:48:11 +1 for punt. 16:48:52 proposed #agreed - 1154347 - Punt - We need some more information from the developers before we can vote on this bug as a blocker. 16:49:40 roshi: we can then go back to 1157657, I added new info 16:49:50 kk 16:50:01 acks? 16:50:23 ack 16:51:12 ack 16:51:38 #agreed - 1154347 - Punt - We need some more information from the developers before we can vote on this bug as a blocker. 16:52:07 and kparal had new info for this bug, so going back 16:52:08 #topic (1157657) DeviceTreeError: failed to scan disk sdb 16:52:08 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157657 16:52:08 #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW 16:52:19 new info is that it's not easily reproducible, basically? 16:52:32 i'll still try it here and see if i can hit the bug, but based on current data i'm -1 if it can't easily be reproduced 16:53:04 yeah 16:53:20 -1 for this 16:53:41 yes, that's the new info 16:54:04 we can still vote in bug after adamw tests it (unless you're not plannning on it now) 16:54:21 -1 based on last comment 16:54:33 * pwhalen is having connection issues, apologies 16:54:37 -1 16:55:02 i'll vote -1 for now, kparal or me can always call for a re-vote if we come up with new data 16:55:08 wfm 16:55:50 proposed again #agreed - 1157657 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't seem to be reproducible. If it turns out otherwise, please repropose. 16:56:19 ack 16:56:33 ack 16:57:29 #agreed - 1157657 - RejectedBlocker - This bug doesn't seem to be reproducible. If it turns out otherwise, please repropose. 16:57:33 #topic (1156614) mdraid set name different between anaconda and installed system - causes failure of installed system to boot 16:57:37 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156614 16:57:39 #info Proposed Blocker, mdadm, NEW 16:58:21 +1 blocker, this is the 'one more fwraid' bug kparal and I both hit in RC12 16:58:23 RC1* 16:58:31 dlehman has a fix, and we both confirmed that fix too 16:58:59 +1 16:59:00 +1 16:59:07 great that a fix is there already too 16:59:08 +1 16:59:12 +1 17:00:02 proposed #agreed - 1156614 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug clearly violates the FirmwareRAID Beta Criteria: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices." 17:01:06 ack 17:01:25 ack 17:01:36 ack 17:01:38 #agreed - 1156614 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug clearly violates the FirmwareRAID Beta Criteria: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices." 17:01:46 * pschindl has to leave now. So have a nice day. 17:01:50 that's it for proposed blockers 17:02:00 have a good evening pschindl thanks for coming :) 17:02:15 roshi: thanks 17:02:31 there's one proposed FE 17:03:10 sure 17:03:14 do we want to endmeeting and get to testing, or complete the rest of the stuff we typically do? 17:03:27 * roshi thinks do the one FE and then get to testing 17:05:20 alright, the FE 17:05:25 #topic (1141414) persistently boots original installed kernel by default, even after kernel updates 17:05:28 #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141414 17:05:30 #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW 17:05:49 oh, hey, i proposed this one 17:06:04 +1 17:06:10 i think it kinda got lost in pjones' shuffle, it'd be really nice to get the fix into beta if we can 17:06:14 I thought we had this fixed already... 17:06:27 i think it's quite unlikely the fix would make anything *worse*, i think the worse a sensible fix could do is not actually fix it 17:06:35 i'll have to poke pjones about it 17:06:56 works for me 17:07:00 other votes? 17:07:43 +1 17:08:01 * kparal needs to go, bye 17:08:08 /me is reading 17:08:41 it's the bug where when you update kernel, the old kernel is still the default in the boot menu 17:09:14 Yeah, I see it now 17:09:48 +1 FE makes sense for Beta 17:11:51 proposed #agreed - 1141414 - AcceptedFreezeException - Please apply the fix so we can pull it in for the next compose. 17:12:03 (man, that's the easiest bz number to type) 17:12:41 ack 17:12:48 ack 17:13:00 there isn't a fix yet :( i'm just putting it on the list in case pjones can write one quick or has it lying around forgotten 17:13:07 it'll only get pulled in if it seems safe 17:13:22 I can patch to reflect that 17:14:07 proposed #agreed - 1141414 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this will be considered if it's completed in time for the next compose. 17:14:52 ack 17:15:41 ack 17:15:48 #agreed - 1141414 - AcceptedFreezeException - A fix for this will be considered if it's completed in time for the next compose. 17:16:02 well, I'm for endmeeting and test 17:16:07 any complaints with that plan? 17:16:31 wfm 17:17:37 #topic Open Floor 17:17:41 * roshi sets the fuse... 17:20:25 thanks for coming folks! 17:20:29 #endmeeting