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.(tflink,
17:07:06)
agreed that the beta release critera are a bit
too strict, should be modified such that this isn't a bug(tflink,
17:27:07)
the release criteria could be reworded to say
there needs to be a working way to shut gracefully using a gui
interface. So if you can shutdown from either gdm or gnome (for
desktop spin) things are good enough for beta.(tflink,
17:28:23)
AGREED: - 736793 -
RejectedBlocker - This bug does hit the release criteria but the fix
involves pulling in a new version of shell and other packages - too
big to retest this late. This will be fixed by final(tflink,
17:29:00)
needs testing with
http://dlehman.fedorapeople.org/updates-738964.6.img(tflink,
17:34:11)
there is an alternative update available that
doesn't use quite so big of a hammer -
http://dlehman.fedorapeople.org/updates-738964.6.img(tflink,
17:35:16)
there are patches on anaconda-devel@ that
should be built in to today, no problems expected in getting a new
build(tflink,
17:36:33)
(739746) dhcp / bind mismatch on f15 to f16 upgrade: no network(tflink, 17:37:34)
this particular bug could be fixed by pulling
in gdm-3.1.92 only without the rest of that update(tflink,
17:45:41)
gnome-shell still wouldn't have PM options @
gdm greeter, but what is there would work(tflink,
17:46:03)
pulling in gdm-3.1.92 needs more testing to
verify that it can be pulled in alone(tflink,
17:48:46)
AGREED: - 739253 -
Assuming that it can be pulled in by itself, pulling in gdm-3.1.92
alone sounds like a reasonable solution to fix this particular bug
even though it won't touch 736793. This needs to be tested more
before pulling it in to beta release, though(tflink,
17:50:40)
(738735) repoclosure failure for 16-Beta.RC1 DVD(tflink, 17:51:11)
AGREED: - 735866 -
RejectedBlocker AcceptedNTH - This has turned out to be a little
less common and severe than we originally thought. If it turns out
to be a bigger issue, re-propose as blocker(tflink,
18:04:41)
ACTION: tflink or
adamw send out request for testing BOTH of the updates for 738964,
explaining why there are 2 updates and what we're looking for in
testing and data for feedback(tflink,
18:07:26)
digikam update for 738735 had issues with
pushing for stable, it has been fixed and should show up with the
next push to stable(tflink,
18:08:25)
next blocker meeting (if needed) will be
2011-09-30 @ 17:00 UTC(tflink,
18:09:31)
tflink or adamw send out request for testing BOTH of the updates for 738964, explaining why there are 2 updates and what we're looking for in testing and data for feedback
Action items, by person
adamw
tflink or adamw send out request for testing BOTH of the updates for 738964, explaining why there are 2 updates and what we're looking for in testing and data for feedback
tflink
tflink or adamw send out request for testing BOTH of the updates for 738964, explaining why there are 2 updates and what we're looking for in testing and data for feedback