15:13:25 <jlaska> #startmeeting Fedora 12 Alpha Blocker bug review
15:13:34 <jlaska> #topic gaining critical mass
15:13:58 * poelcat here
15:14:08 <jlaska> poelcat: hey there
15:14:14 <poelcat> jlaska: howdy
15:14:27 <jlaska> lemme see if we can get notting (devel) and f13 (releng)
15:14:29 <jeff_hann> hey
15:14:32 <rjune_wrk> here
15:14:42 <jlaska> jeff_hann: rjune_wrk: howdy folks :)
15:16:09 <jlaska> we've got a small blocker bug list ... which is great
15:16:24 <jlaska> mclasen: howdy :)
15:16:42 <jlaska> I don't see notting around ... he might be mia today
15:16:42 * mclasen lurks
15:17:08 <jlaska> do we have the adamw_ plugin enabled?
15:19:05 <jlaska> well ... let's get started
15:19:14 <jlaska> the list isn't very large and I think we can manage for now
15:19:23 <poelcat> jlaska: start and see where we get?
15:19:23 <jlaska> I'll be walking through https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=507676&hide_resolved=1
15:19:33 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=516941
15:19:34 <bugbot> Bug 516941: medium, low, ---, kernel-maint, MODIFIED, kms broken and can cause oops without git3 upstream PAT patches
15:20:29 <jlaska> rhe attempted to test this last night, but she's hitting some DRM failures
15:20:38 <jlaska> "the screen displays:[drm:
15:20:39 <jlaska> radeon_driver_load_kms]*ERROR* Failed to initialize radeon, disabling IOCTL."
15:21:46 <jlaska> stickster: you mentioned it earlier on #fedora-qa ... are you in the loop on recent X changes for the Alpha?
15:22:12 <jlaska> looks like there is a newer kernel that rhe would need to confirm with
15:22:18 <jlaska> so ... going by bug status ... a fix is in
15:22:32 <jlaska> there are few/little details in teh bug report to indicate whether this fits the blocker criteria
15:22:44 <jlaska> other than dave airlie escalated it ... and he's usually spot on
15:23:06 <jlaska> so the best I can determine is that this needs verification still against kernel-2.6.31-0.145.2.1.rc5.git3.fc12
15:23:27 <jlaska> any other thoughts?
15:25:47 * poelcat thinks next bug
15:25:50 <jlaska> okay ... I'll mark this as no new updates ... still awaiting verification
15:26:16 <poelcat> jlaska: wasn't there a tag being used for "needs verification" ?
15:26:20 <jlaska> #agreed 516941 - no new updates, still awaiting retest request from jkeating against kernel-2.6.31-0.145.2.1.rc5.git3.fc12
15:26:41 <jlaska> poelcat: there is ... but not really paying attention to that at the moment
15:26:50 <jlaska> I'm asking folks to focus on testing anything in MODIFIED on the blockers
15:27:38 <jlaska> #idea QUESTION - Should bug verification happen from the NEEDSRETESTING keyword ... or against any MODIFIED bugs on a blocker list
15:27:43 <jlaska> alright, next up
15:27:50 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517171
15:27:52 <bugbot> Bug 517171: medium, low, ---, jkeating, MODIFIED, Installation fails to find repodata when booting from boot.iso
15:28:34 <jlaska> summary - this bug prevents installation from boot.iso ... and I suspect any physical fedora media that also references a yum repo via url
15:28:43 <jlaska> so .. I think this is still a good blocker candidate
15:28:56 <jlaska> it's in MODIFIED ... awaiting a new anaconda to test against in rawhide (needs anaconda-12.15 or newer)
15:29:12 <jlaska> unless any other questions/concerns ... I'm going to move to the next
15:29:48 <jlaska> #agreed 517171 - Awaiting new anaconda-12.15 to land in rawhide to confirm fix
15:29:58 <jlaska> alrighty ... last bug on the list
15:30:06 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517475
15:30:08 <bugbot> Bug 517475: medium, low, ---, pmatilai, NEW, geode not i686 arch in rpmrc.in
15:30:27 * poelcat doesn't see why must be fixed for alpha
15:30:43 <jlaska> yeah, this doesn't strike me as a blocker ... let's toss it through the blocker meat grinder
15:31:04 <jlaska> * Can this issue be fixed with a future rawhide update or is it
15:31:05 <jlaska> part of the media kit?
15:31:05 <jlaska> * Is this defect a high (or greater) severity [1] with no, or an
15:31:08 <jlaska> unreasonable, workaround?
15:31:10 <jlaska> * Does the presence of this bug dramatically reduce test coverage?
15:31:13 <jlaska> 
15:31:30 <poelcat> no, no, and no?
15:31:43 <jlaska> yeah, part of media kit ... no
15:32:02 <jlaska> it fits the bill of incomplete feature
15:32:12 <jlaska> if that's a valid criteria for the alpha
15:32:38 <jlaska> so without this fix ...  OLPC-XO is unsupported for the Alpha
15:33:06 <jlaska> I'd like more opinions, but I think that's something we can live with and refer to future nightly live images posted by nirik if folks need to test
15:33:23 * poelcat doesn't want to harm OLPC, but is factoring in downstream important?
15:33:43 <rjune_wrk> I would sau ot
15:34:00 <rjune_wrk> I would say it's important to consider what the impact will be to who.
15:35:21 <jlaska> I wouldn't know who the sugar experts are to pull in on this issue
15:35:29 <jlaska> however,  the sugar test day is planned for later in the cycle
15:35:33 <poelcat> jlaska: ask for feedback in bug and f-devel and remove from blocker on monday if no response?
15:36:12 <jlaska> yeah that sounds sane to me
15:36:42 <jlaska> #action jlaska to request additional feedback on the impact to Fedora users in 517475
15:37:04 <jlaska> rjune_wrk: can you explain your comment further?
15:38:04 <rjune_wrk> poelcat asked if factoring in downstream is important, I would say it is. If they're a fringe group, less important, if they're a larger group, might need/want them for testing.
15:38:35 <jlaska> I see ... yeah that's fair to consider
15:38:37 <rjune_wrk> I wouldn't think OLPC is a huge group downstream, so they're probably not a huge issue. but if it affected general netbooks then that might be important.
15:38:57 <jlaska> great point
15:39:12 <jlaska> rjune_wrk: I'll include your thoughts when I update the bz, thanks
15:39:21 <rjune_wrk> and I have to cut out. I'll be be back in an hour or so.
15:39:21 <jlaska> alrighty gang ... we're done with F12Alpha
15:39:38 <jlaska> #topic <insert your alpha blocker here>
15:39:50 <jlaska> let's open it up to the >quiet< audience
15:39:54 <jlaska> any proposed blocker bugs?
15:40:47 <jlaska> closing out in 2 minutes ...
15:41:06 <jlaska> I should note, that lili and rhe did a retest against rawhide last night of the installer
15:41:25 <jlaska> they updated results to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_12_Alpha_TCRegression_Install_Test_Results
15:42:02 <jlaska> I'm walking through the bugs filed, so far I've not escalated any issues, but there are a few good bugs that will be landing in F12Beta or later milestone
15:42:23 * stickster tunes in late, sorry
15:42:30 <poelcat> jlaska: is there an official "Alpha Compose" yet?
15:42:37 * poelcat thought date was yesterday for that
15:42:48 <jlaska> poelcat: there is not ... I believe jkeating was waiting on feedback for those 2 MODIFIED bugs
15:43:11 <jlaska> denise and jkeating also were curious how a quick scrub of the install matrix was holding up
15:43:15 <jlaska> so ... I think it's holding up well
15:43:24 <jlaska> but we still are unable to verify the 2 MODIFIED bugs
15:44:41 <jlaska> so ... I think that about covers the state of the onion :)
15:44:48 <jlaska> any other comments?
15:44:52 <jlaska> or bz's to consider?
15:45:00 <jlaska> or favorite hicu's?
15:45:42 <jlaska> <tick> <tock> <tick> ....
15:46:13 <jlaska> alrighty folks
15:46:15 <jlaska> let's close it out
15:46:20 <jlaska> thanks for attending!
15:46:29 <jlaska> I'll follow-up to the announcement mail with a recap
15:46:33 <jlaska> #endmeeting