16:00:14 <tflink> #startmeeting f18-beta-blocker-review-2.1
16:00:15 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Oct  4 16:00:14 2012 UTC.  The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:15 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:15 <tflink> #meetingname f18-beta-blocker-review-2.1
16:00:15 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f18-beta-blocker-review-2.1'
16:00:18 <tflink> #topic Roll Call
16:00:36 <tflink> Who's ready to continue yesterday's blocker review fun?
16:00:38 <adamw> yo
16:01:13 * adamw can't wait
16:02:23 <tflink> adamw: hrm, I wonder about anyone who's that excited :-/
16:02:53 <tflink> #chair adamw
16:02:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw tflink
16:03:58 <tflink> I suspect that there is a bit too much fun to go around if there's just the two of us
16:04:39 <Martix> Kamil has very bad headache and can't speak
16:05:05 <adamw> very bad headache, huh.
16:05:09 * satellit listening
16:05:28 <Martix> and somebody spilt a beer on his laptop's keyboard
16:06:03 <adamw> how terrible.
16:06:20 <adamw> are his ear canals blocked by beer too?
16:06:22 <Martix> kparal: right? :-D
16:06:44 <Martix> adamw: ack
16:06:57 * kparal is awake now
16:07:03 <adamw> Viking-Ice: around?
16:07:11 <adamw> nirik: ping
16:07:25 <nirik> yes?
16:07:38 * kparal notes Martix is just utterly making things up
16:07:39 <adamw> nirik: can you write a script that spams 'ack' into this channel every minute or so?
16:07:47 <Martix> pschindl: is here?
16:07:51 <nirik> hum?
16:08:01 <tflink> Martix: are you able to stay for most of the meeting or are you leaving in an hour as well?
16:08:03 <nirik> I'm sure. ;)
16:08:07 <adamw> nirik: that way we can say it wasn't just me and tflink deciding all the blockers ;)
16:08:16 <Martix> jreznik: and you?
16:08:47 <Martix> tflink: I'll leave shortly before 18 UTC and rejoin in about 30 minutes
16:09:52 <tflink> so ATM it's me, adamw, Martix (until 18), kparal (until 17)
16:10:14 <adamw> eh, let's just go for it
16:10:24 <kparal> right. 17:something
16:10:42 <tflink> fun times - lets see what we can get through until we scare everyone off :)
16:10:52 <tflink> #topic Introduction
16:11:00 <tflink> Why are we here?
16:11:02 <tflink> #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.
16:11:14 <tflink> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:11:14 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:11:19 <tflink> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:11:20 <tflink> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:11:26 <tflink> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:11:26 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:11:26 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:11:26 <tflink> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Final_Release_Criteria
16:11:43 <tflink> Technically, up for review today are:
16:11:46 <tflink> #info 26 Proposed Blockers
16:11:47 <tflink> #info 13 Accepted Blockers
16:11:47 <tflink> #info 5 Proposed NTH
16:11:47 <tflink> #info 5 Accepted NTH
16:12:00 <tflink> however, I'm planning to skip pretty much everything that we covered yesterday
16:12:09 <nanonyme> Crap, I didn't have time to file a bug against beta yet.
16:12:21 <kparal> nanonyme: still plenty of time
16:12:37 <nanonyme> Ah, awesome.
16:12:44 <nanonyme> Carry on
16:13:40 <tflink> #topic (860551) black screen fedora 20120924-test_days-x86_64
16:13:40 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860551
16:13:40 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
16:14:34 <tflink> I'm thinking -1 blocker on this
16:14:52 * tflink suspects that intel+amd in laptops is not common enough to justify blocker status
16:16:16 <adamw> reading
16:16:41 <kparal> this is gonna be a tough meeting
16:16:45 <adamw> oh, so this is amd's version of Fusion
16:17:12 <adamw> well, we don't even know if that's really the issue, or if it's just a normal graphics bug, all we know is one system is apparently busted.
16:17:17 <tflink> adamw: you mean optimus?
16:17:26 <Martix> look at Xorg.O.log
16:17:40 <adamw> right.
16:17:43 <Martix> its problem in Intel driver
16:17:52 <adamw> it's in an archive so i refused.
16:17:57 <tflink> same here
16:18:04 <adamw> hate people who put their logs in archives :P
16:18:27 <tflink> I see no evidence or comments that this affects more than ati's optimus
16:18:38 <tflink> therefore, -1 blocker
16:18:58 <tflink> specific to hw, not common enough to justify blocker - especially not beta blocker
16:19:11 <tflink> any other thoughts?
16:19:26 <tflink> to be more specific, -1 blocker, -1 nth
16:19:30 <adamw> covers it for me
16:19:32 <nanonyme> RH Buzilla is bugging so hard that I've difficulty filing this bug. Btw, is non-graphical anaconda with UEFI not asking password for root and resulting in a system that doesn't give firstboot so you can't create any user accounts a beta blocker?
16:19:40 <adamw> if we find it's affecting all such systems we could reconsider
16:19:42 <Martix> I dont see evidence that this is cause by ATI PowerXpress
16:19:44 <nanonyme> (or would it justify the criteria)
16:19:51 <Martix> +1 NTH
16:20:07 <adamw> nanonyme: probably, yes. text install is supposed to have a root pw step though...seems odd
16:20:25 <tflink> I don't pretend to know enough about X and drivers to tell if this is a general problem
16:20:37 <tflink> however, there is one reporter using somewhat obscure HW
16:20:44 <Martix> but we need more info for this bug
16:21:00 <tflink> but that's not justification for making it a blocker
16:21:16 <tflink> unless I'm just missing something here - which is entirely possible
16:21:23 <adamw> we can't really punt for more info on every graphics showstopper ever on the assumption it might affect more systems
16:21:36 <adamw> or else every time we found one it'd be in the list for weeks
16:21:42 * kparal agrees
16:21:44 <adamw> we have to assume they're single-system until proven otherwise
16:21:58 <kparal> if it turns out it affects more hardware, we'll reconsider
16:22:00 <adamw> so i'm with tim on this one, -1
16:22:02 <kparal> ack
16:22:06 <tflink> I'm not saying it isn't severe or doesn't need to be fixed - it just doesn't seem to qualify for release blocking status as that is currently defined
16:22:25 <tflink> NTH?
16:22:28 <adamw> Martix: did you look at any kind of triage for the gfx test week bugs, looking for ones that seem to be dupes of each other and duping them off?
16:22:29 <Martix> ok, at least NTH?
16:22:29 <kparal> blocking Beta for this is not a good idea
16:22:33 <Viking-Ice> hey it's a blocker
16:22:40 <Viking-Ice> I hit that shit :)
16:23:03 <adamw> =)
16:23:08 <adamw> the old Me Blocker
16:23:09 <Viking-Ice> remove guiet and or the gfxpayloud entry in grub to work around black screen of death
16:23:31 <tflink> any votes on NTH - I see +1, -1 right now
16:23:50 <adamw> well we went with +1 on the gfx showstopper from yesterday
16:23:57 <adamw> so we should really be consistent
16:24:01 <Viking-Ice> yup
16:24:02 <adamw> either they're all NTH or none of them are
16:24:08 <adamw> so, +1.
16:24:15 <Viking-Ice> +1
16:24:29 <kparal> +1
16:24:30 <Martix> adamw: its hard to find dupes without going and comparing logs
16:24:33 <Martix> +1 NTH
16:24:48 * tflink thinks this is a bad precedent to set, but realizes that he is outvoted
16:25:21 <Martix> tflink: +1
16:26:14 <kparal> Martix: have you just voted against your vote?
16:26:26 <tflink> proposed #agreed 860551 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - While severe, this seems to affect a very small subset of hardware and thus does not qualify for blocker status. However, a well-tested fix would be considered past freeze
16:26:31 <adamw> ack
16:26:31 <kparal> ack
16:26:38 <tflink> kparal: I think he also dislikes this but for different reasons
16:26:39 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:26:52 <tflink> so, any bad graphics bug qualifies as NTH?
16:27:00 <Martix> ack
16:27:02 <tflink> regardless of triage status or pending fix?
16:27:04 <Martix> tflink: no
16:27:17 <Viking-Ice> black screens  from the get go I would say so
16:27:18 <Martix> tflink: some of them can affect more systems
16:27:19 <tflink> Martix: isn't that the precedent we're setting here?
16:27:38 <tflink> Martix: that's great but how long do we want the NTH list to be
16:27:44 <tflink> the longer it gets, the more its ignored
16:27:59 <tflink> if there is no triage and no pending fix, I fail to see the point in keeping it on the NTH list
16:28:29 <Martix> tflink: Im talking about blockers, we need to catch bugs breaking more systems, like one GPU generation
16:28:54 <adamw> Martix: tflink meant *at least* NTH, I think.
16:29:00 <kparal> there's some truth to what tflink says. otoh if the system doesn't boot at all, I consider it pretty bad
16:29:12 <kparal> graphics corruption wouldn't be that bad
16:29:16 <tflink> blocker/NTH status is not just about bad
16:29:17 <adamw> tflink: the NTH bug list isn't really meant to be a worklist the way the blocker bug list is.
16:29:26 <adamw> it's simply meant to determine what bugs we take fixes for through freeze. that's all.
16:29:54 <adamw> developers are expected to prioritize blocker bugs, but it's their choice whether they prioritize NTH bugs.
16:29:58 <tflink> how can we possibly determine whether we'd take a fix past freeze when it hasn't even been _TRIAGED_ yet?
16:30:16 <adamw> because we know how bad it is?
16:30:21 <tflink> for a single system
16:30:31 <adamw> sure.
16:30:35 <kparal> it's true we don't know how offensive the fix would be
16:30:46 <adamw> again, we don't *have* to take NTH fixes.
16:30:54 <kparal> but we also need to give some hint to developers what to fix first
16:31:03 <adamw> NTH bugs are ones we will potentially include. not definitely./
16:31:32 <tflink> how does NTH correlate w/ priority?
16:31:57 <tflink> now that I think about it, let's just drop the issue - we need to get through this list
16:32:18 <tflink> my issues with NTH naming and taking bugs isn't going to get very far in 5 minutes
16:32:35 <tflink> #agreed 860551 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - While severe, this seems to affect a very small subset of hardware and thus does not qualify for blocker status. However, a well-tested fix would be considered past freeze
16:32:37 <adamw> priority as in the bugzilla field? it really doesn't. priority is by policy owned by developers to be used however they like.
16:32:49 <Martix> priority: look at test results on X test week pages and prioritize bugs from most hitted do "hits only one user on one obcure system"
16:33:07 <tflink> adamw: kparal implied that NTH -> fix this first, it's more important
16:33:30 <kparal> no, but the developers roughly know what could be accepted post-freeze
16:33:32 <adamw> like i said, i don't read it that way. i don't think it's Officially Decided anywhere, though.
16:33:45 <adamw> anyway, as tflink said, let's move on
16:33:56 <adamw> i have an appointment with dr. toothy in 4.5hrs =)
16:34:13 <kparal> the tooth fairy?
16:34:14 <tflink> #topic (860668) artifacts on xrestart with rv710
16:34:15 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860668
16:34:15 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
16:34:26 <Martix> adamw: you should reschedule it :-)
16:34:33 <tflink> same, -1,-1
16:35:24 <kparal> no screenshot?
16:35:41 <Martix> according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-09-26_Radeon it affects only one user, so my vote: -1 blocker, +1 NTH
16:35:51 <kparal> what graphics card?
16:36:04 <Martix> RV710
16:36:04 <adamw> -1/-1
16:36:07 <adamw> this isn't a showstopper
16:36:11 <kparal> -1 -1
16:36:14 <adamw> so no need for nth, could be fixed with an update.
16:36:27 <zodbot> Ticket notification - f18betanicetohave: [Bug 860551] black screen fedora 20120924-test_days-x86_64 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860551>
16:36:50 <Martix> adamw: this could be enough
16:37:12 <kparal> lets #propose
16:38:31 * adamw pokes tflink with a stick
16:38:36 <tflink> proposed #agreed 860668 - RejectedBlocker, RejectedNTH - There is only one reporter on this bug and it doesn't prevent booting of the system. This doesn't appear to be widespread enough to justify blocker status. This could be fixed with an update, therefore it does not qualify as NTH.
16:38:53 <Martix> ack
16:39:01 <adamw> ack
16:39:23 <kparal> ack
16:39:33 <tflink> #agreed 860668 - RejectedBlocker, RejectedNTH - There is only one reporter on this bug and it doesn't prevent booting of the system. This doesn't appear to be widespread enough to justify blocker status. This could be fixed with an update, therefore it does not qualify as NTH.
16:39:40 <tflink> #topic (860712) [6550D SUMO] problems with second monitor on VGA, causing GPU lockups
16:39:43 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860712
16:39:45 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, ASSIGNED
16:40:44 <Viking-Ice> did we just agree that 860551 was a nth ?
16:41:03 <adamw> yes
16:41:26 <adamw> is that a problem?
16:41:27 <Viking-Ice> ah sorry was looking at the ticket notification
16:41:43 <kparal> so this freezes only with dualhead?
16:41:44 <Viking-Ice> though we just aggreed to it not being a nth suddenly
16:41:44 <tflink> I'm probably -1, -1 on this as well unless there are more reports
16:41:46 <adamw> oh yeah, when it's not proposed as NTH I add it when i'm writing the ticket update, and that causes the notification spam
16:41:55 <adamw> definitely -1 blocker
16:42:12 <tflink> there are reasonable workarounds as well
16:42:18 <adamw> second head probably drops it out of NTHness, i guess
16:42:21 <tflink> either unplug the second monitor or use the console
16:42:32 <tflink> (for updating)
16:42:50 <Viking-Ice> btw any black screen qualifies as an bug
16:42:54 <Martix> it can be fixed after release
16:42:54 <kparal> still, feezing is very inconvenient. any reason to deny nth here?
16:43:03 <Viking-Ice> an real bug fails reach desktop criteria
16:43:09 <Martix> but NTH is NTH :-)
16:43:10 <Viking-Ice> to reach I mean
16:43:19 <tflink> kparal: limited hw, few reporters and reasonable workarounds
16:43:28 <tflink> it's not just dualhead as I'm reading it
16:43:28 <Viking-Ice> if it fals under a real criteria it falls under a real criteria
16:43:38 <tflink> it's dualhead when one is DVI and the other is VGA
16:44:12 <Viking-Ice> "That isn't a Fedora kernel.  Fedora bugzilla is not the correct place to report issues with upstream kernels."
16:44:23 <tflink> Viking-Ice: he retested it with a fedora kernel
16:44:36 <Viking-Ice> had not gone down that far
16:44:49 <tflink> votes?
16:45:02 <Viking-Ice> NTH at best
16:45:18 <kparal> -1 blocker
16:45:21 <adamw> yeah, definitely -1 blocker
16:45:28 <adamw> shall we just agree on -1 blocker and revisit nth status if it comes up?
16:45:33 <Viking-Ice> yup
16:45:35 <tflink> I see -3, +0 blocker
16:45:35 <adamw> say, if there's an actual fix.
16:45:49 <Martix> -1/+1
16:46:15 <jreznik> sorry I guys, late again - in a different timezone but I just talked to anaconda boss - so :)
16:46:31 <Viking-Ice> FREE BEER FOR EVERYONE! ;)
16:46:50 <adamw> you're buying us all beer viking?
16:46:55 <tflink> sweet
16:47:10 <Viking-Ice> I would give you mead or vodka
16:48:13 <Viking-Ice> in anycase let's carry on
16:48:24 <tflink> proposed #agreed 860712 - RejectedBlocker - This does not affect enough hardware to qualify as a blocker, has reasonable workarounds (unplug second monitor) and could be fixed with an update (at least from console)
16:48:29 <Viking-Ice> when you come visit the top of the world I gladly give you beer
16:48:29 <Viking-Ice> ack
16:48:33 <Martix> jreznik: how many times will be F18 postponed before Anaconda team drops newUI?
16:48:46 <kparal> ack
16:49:14 <adamw> ack
16:49:23 <tflink> #agreed 860712 - RejectedBlocker - This does not affect enough hardware to qualify as a blocker, has reasonable workarounds (unplug second monitor) and could be fixed with an update (at least from console)
16:49:34 <tflink> #topic (752613) Nivida 100M on Lenovo W520 Wont boot if using Discrete Graphics
16:49:37 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752613
16:49:40 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
16:50:05 <tflink> haven't we already seen this?
16:50:23 <Viking-Ice> yes I recall the vt discussion yesterday
16:50:26 <adamw> sounsd like a dupe of that bug
16:50:28 <tflink> this is the one that can be worked around by disabling VT-d, no?
16:50:38 <adamw> see comment #19
16:50:58 <adamw> yeah, same affected systems, same symptoms.
16:51:17 <adamw> we should probably do a count of affected symptoms and reporters, when we start getting this many my antenna go tingly.
16:51:21 <tflink> per previous bugs, -1 blocker
16:51:47 <Viking-Ice> s-1 blocker
16:51:49 <adamw> well for now we should make them dupes and use the previous resolution
16:51:54 <Viking-Ice> yup
16:51:57 <kparal> when reading this, I have to say I don't think it's useful to review years old bugs when no fix has been proposed
16:52:02 <adamw> if me or martix feel there's enough sufferers to re-propose it, we can do
16:52:05 <Martix> yeah its a dupe, so #835648 is more and more important
16:52:29 <adamw> kparal: on the rare occasion we take an X bug as a blocker, it usually does light a fire under the devs and it gets fixed. even if it's an old bug.
16:52:34 <tflink> so 860551 is NTH but this isn't?
16:52:43 <kparal> ok, good to know
16:52:47 <adamw> kparal: of course, that only works if we don't overwhelm them, hence the high bar.
16:52:51 <Martix> tflink: this should be same
16:52:54 <adamw> tflink: i think on the basis that it's so easy to workaround?
16:52:59 <Martix> +1 NTH
16:53:21 <tflink> Martix: the one we're talking about as a dupe was rejected as NTH becuase it had a workaround and was HT specific
16:53:27 <tflink> HW
16:54:30 <Martix> tflink: its HW specific, but it breaks many laptops
16:54:47 <adamw> well we didn't really set out great not-NTH reasoning, the vote just went that way. it was split then i switched my vote to help it go through.
16:55:02 <adamw> as did martix.
16:55:24 <Martix> maybe wait for final?
16:55:31 <tflink> wait, what?
16:55:44 <adamw> confusion reigns!
16:55:48 <tflink> someone explain to me why this is less NTH worthy than 860551
16:55:54 <adamw> tflink: the workaround is the only difference
16:56:13 <adamw> but yeah, i think we should go with the system we just decided and make it nth. stupid me following the herd mentality =)
16:57:04 <tflink> punishing people for triaging and figuring it out == awesome
16:57:15 <tflink> punishing is the wrong word
16:57:47 * tflink is going to shut up before he says something stupid
16:58:22 <tflink> I see -2 blocker, +1 NTH
16:58:28 <Martix> we need to breed and foster more X developers
16:58:39 <Viking-Ice> so here's the thing
16:59:07 <Viking-Ice> all graphics bugs that prevent the user to reach gdm or login screen as in "black screen" are criteria bugs thus should block
16:59:21 <Viking-Ice> regardless if they have working workarounds or not
16:59:26 <Martix> or kick 2 of 3 GPU manufacturers out of market :-P
16:59:36 <adamw> they're _conditional_ criteria infringements, the condition being 'on the hardware configurations affected by the bug'.
17:00:02 <nanonyme> Martix, maybe you could convince airlied to take an apprentice ;P
17:00:08 <Viking-Ice> having users either having to do some bios hacking or grub modification is in reality unacceptable
17:00:21 <Viking-Ice> at least they should be final bugs
17:00:41 <adamw> i don't think there's ever been a release of any linux distribution on which X worked on every available graphics card.
17:00:42 <tflink> Viking-Ice: I don't disagree with you but I think that kind of an approach is a little impractical
17:00:52 <adamw> in other words, if we accept that as a principle, we will never ship.
17:01:05 <Viking-Ice> tflink, and that's why we have NTH :)
17:01:15 <Martix> "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures" what about "all default firmware configurations"?
17:01:37 <Viking-Ice> it's nice to have but we dont promiss anything  ;)
17:01:43 <Viking-Ice> +1 NTH
17:01:46 <tflink> so we complain about the instability when stuff breaks past freeze but we take fixes before the bug they fix has been triaged?
17:01:54 <Martix> adamw: we'll never ship, but because of newUI ;-)
17:01:57 <tflink> yes, I know we don't have to take NTH fixes
17:02:14 <adamw> tflink: what would triaging tell us?
17:02:32 <adamw> note, there's no-one systematically doing X triage at this point. it was me and mcepl. now it's no-one.
17:02:32 <Viking-Ice> Martix, we have never ship on time anyway so hardly makes a different
17:02:33 <tflink> adamw: whether there are workarounds
17:02:53 <Viking-Ice> mcepl has left?
17:02:57 <adamw> he hasn't left
17:03:00 <adamw> but he doesn't have time for X triage
17:03:19 <tflink> the NTH process is a somewhat human process, the longer we wait between accepting as NTH and the fix showing up increases the odds that it could get pulled in without enough thought
17:03:46 <tflink> I keep saying that I'm done arguing, then I start right up again
17:03:50 <adamw> =)
17:04:00 <adamw> i'm gonna say in principle i'm usually +1 NTH to X showstoppers.
17:04:07 <adamw> workaround or not.
17:04:08 <adamw> so +1.
17:04:12 <tflink> I see -2 blocker, +3 NTH
17:04:17 <adamw> negating previous vote.
17:04:23 <Martix> lets #propose
17:05:51 <tflink> proposed #agreed 752613 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - This does not affect enough hardware to qualify as a blocker for F18 beta. However, it is an X showstopper for some and thus, a tested fix would be considered for pulling in past freeze.
17:05:56 <kparal> ack
17:06:02 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:06:11 <Martix> ack
17:06:16 <tflink> #agreed 752613 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - This does not affect enough hardware to qualify as a blocker for F18 beta. However, it is an X showstopper for some and thus, a tested fix would be considered for pulling in past freeze.
17:06:25 <tflink> #topic (855560) F18 Live Alpha : nVidia GeForce 8600M GT, graphic driver (nouveau): very poor performance (vesa is fluid)
17:06:28 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855560
17:06:31 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
17:07:38 <adamw> i'll make 835648 a dupe of 752613.
17:07:43 <Martix> he doesnt answered to comment #10
17:07:53 <Viking-Ice> need info with beta tc?
17:08:18 <akshayvyas> Viking-Ice: +1
17:10:19 <tflink> punt, then?
17:10:21 <zodbot> Ticket notification - f18betanicetohave: [Bug 752613] Nivida 100M on Lenovo W520 Wont boot if using Discrete Graphics <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752613>
17:11:05 <tflink> are we still running a debug kernel?
17:11:21 <tflink> I forget when we stop running debug
17:11:31 <adamw> no
17:11:35 <adamw> we're release from now on
17:12:20 <adamw> yeah, we needinfo here.
17:12:45 <Martix> he reported this bug in test day results table, but certainly we need more info about debug kernel and llvmpipe
17:13:13 <adamw> doesn't sound blockerish anyway tbh, but i don't mind punting for info
17:13:26 <Martix> Just moving the window around, using the mouse :
17:13:28 <Martix> - with desktop effects : X 50% + kwin 40%
17:13:29 <Martix> - without desktop effects : X 50% + kwin 5%
17:13:36 <tflink> proposed #agreed 855560 - We need more information about potential workarounds and kernel versions before making a decision on blocker status. Will revisit at a later meeting.
17:13:40 <Martix> seems like llvmpipe or perf problem in X
17:13:54 <Martix> ack
17:13:58 <akshayvyas> ack
17:14:13 <kparal> ack
17:14:15 <tflink> #agreed 855560 - We need more information about potential workarounds and kernel versions before making a decision on blocker status. Will revisit at a later meeting.
17:14:26 <tflink> #topic (860477) nouveau Xorg crash following boot (GTX 580)
17:14:26 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860477
17:14:26 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
17:14:34 <Viking-Ice> ack and for each of these graphics issue I'm pretty sure the developers want drm.debug=0x04 and then dmesg output attached to the report
17:15:58 <adamw> who is sebastian vahl and why are all these nouveau bugs getting assigned to him?
17:16:26 <Viking-Ice> dont question GOD sorry mean sebastian
17:16:47 <Martix> I see: Assigned To:Ben Skeggs
17:16:49 <adamw> huh
17:16:58 <adamw> oh, i'm on 855560 still
17:16:58 <tflink> Martix: 855560
17:17:20 <Martix> oh, interesting
17:17:28 <adamw> oh, it was filed against a different component initially.
17:17:31 <adamw> sorry to derail, move on...
17:17:52 * kparal has to leave
17:18:07 <tflink> kparal: have fun with your presentation
17:18:23 <kparal> thanks, enjoy the rest of the meeting
17:18:24 <adamw> looks like a textbook single system X bug.
17:18:27 <adamw> so -1/+1.
17:18:43 <tflink> I wonder if I'd hit this with my GTX570
17:18:57 <kparal> I'm gonna get more Fedora users. bye
17:19:21 <adamw> tflink: possible, worth testing
17:20:03 <tflink> proposed #agreed 860477 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - While severe, this appears to affect a small minority of hardware at the moment and thus does not qualify as a blocker for F18 beta. However, it is an X showstopper and thus qualifies as NTH.
17:20:15 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:20:21 <akshayvyas> ack
17:20:24 <Martix> wait I saw simillar lockup on other GPUs as well
17:20:32 <Viking-Ice> and ?
17:20:48 <Martix> it affects many systems
17:20:53 <adamw> sure it's the same bug?
17:20:56 <Viking-Ice> someone needs to go over all those bugs and flag which hardware it's happening on
17:21:01 <Martix> for start: https://www.google.com/search?q=nouveau+GPU+lockup&sitesearch=bugzilla.redhat.com
17:21:23 <adamw> that's an extremely general search.
17:21:28 <adamw> Viking-Ice: yeah, that's what I used to do...
17:21:46 <adamw> Martix: a bug's a dupe of this one if it has an Xorg.0.log with the same traceback in it.
17:21:51 <adamw> (or, of course, if darktama says it is.)
17:21:51 <tflink> that's going to be hard since smolt is due to be put down soon (in a week or two, I think)
17:22:01 <adamw> tflink: the info is in Xorg.0.log, you just have to pull it out
17:22:07 <Martix> tflink: why??
17:22:10 <Viking-Ice> Martix all I get from google is bora bora ads
17:22:17 <adamw> the triage script used to have a nifty trick for doing it automatically, even. dunno if that still works.
17:22:26 <Viking-Ice> and related searches dam googles personal searches
17:22:31 <tflink> Martix: because it needs to be put out of its misery - off topic for this meeting though
17:22:56 <adamw> Xorg log is better than smolt data, actually, because of smolt's wonderfully braindead trick of giving PCI IDs in base 10.
17:22:57 <Viking-Ice> hour and tweenty in the the 3/4 hour mark
17:23:17 <adamw> Martix: so you don't have specific reports that are definitely dupes of this?
17:23:25 <adamw> if not, we take the -1/+1 and move on...
17:23:31 <Martix> looking at my bug list...
17:23:33 * tflink is still waiting for another ack
17:23:42 <adamw> i'm waiting on martix before acking.
17:23:50 <Viking-Ice> I acked
17:24:19 <tflink> Viking-Ice: I see two ATM - we can wait
17:24:37 <Martix> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861646
17:25:14 <Martix> I cant find that I saw 2 weeks ago
17:26:15 <Martix> #861646 is on proposed list
17:26:31 <adamw> ther's no X log in that bug.
17:26:39 <adamw> i don't know why you're hung up on the word 'lockup' here.
17:26:48 <adamw> 860477 is not a gpu lockup, it's an X crash.
17:27:16 <adamw> oh, wait, i see the lock description now.
17:27:32 <Martix> look at dmesg
17:27:37 <Martix> [   40.443292] [drm] nouveau 0000:07:00.0: GPU lockup - switching to software fbcon
17:27:42 <adamw> still, just the fact that the GPU locks doesn't make it the same bug
17:28:14 <adamw> i don't think we can assume there's a single bug causing multiple reports of GPU lockups on the data we have...
17:28:33 <adamw> so, ack
17:28:42 <Viking-Ice> *cough* drm regression *cough*
17:28:53 <tflink> #agreed 860477 - RejectedBlocker, AcceptedNTH - While severe, this appears to affect a small minority of hardware at the moment and thus does not qualify as a blocker for F18 beta. However, it is an X showstopper and thus qualifies as NTH.
17:29:03 <tflink> #topic (860624) Gnome-shall hangs when requested activities
17:29:03 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860624
17:29:03 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
17:29:04 <Martix> ok, ack
17:32:35 <Viking-Ice> " gnome-session[1339]: CRITICAL: unable to create file '/run/user/1000/dconf/user': Permission denied.  dconf will not work properly."
17:33:03 <adamw> "Sep 26 06:57:00 localhost kernel: [ 1854.175671] [drm:drm_debugfs_create_files] *ERROR* Cannot create /sys/kernel/debug/dri/channel/4"
17:33:07 <adamw> could be the startx bug.
17:33:21 <adamw> hum, oh no, that's the debugfs, not the actual dri node.
17:33:24 <tflink> Error opening /etc/crypttab file: Failed to open file '/etc/crypttab': No such file or directory
17:33:46 <adamw> tflink: irrelevant, that's just it looking for encrypted partitions and not finding any.
17:34:09 <tflink> yeah, I was just thinking it might be a live issue
17:34:21 <adamw> oh, hm, it is later than i'd think...hm.
17:34:31 <tflink> and it keeps happening
17:34:36 <adamw> that whole log looks like some kind of wacky crap going on at the end there.
17:34:37 <tflink> I see 3 at the moment
17:34:58 <Viking-Ice> It looks like this is an live cd so ?
17:35:38 <Viking-Ice> "systemd-logind[551]: New session 3 of user liveuser."
17:35:43 <zodbot> Ticket notification - f18betanicetohave: [Bug 860477] nouveau Xorg crash following boot (GTX 580) <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860477>
17:35:54 <adamw> yeah.
17:36:01 <adamw> anyhow, doesn't look like any of the other bugs we've seen
17:36:09 <adamw> and it's a rather random one, and there's not enough information
17:36:14 <Viking-Ice> yup
17:36:14 <adamw> looks -1/-1 to me.
17:36:19 <Viking-Ice> same from me
17:36:49 <adamw> file under live environment wackiness and move on.
17:38:05 <adamw> propose, tflink?
17:38:06 <tflink> proposed #agreed 860624 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly violate any of the F18 beta release criteria and there are few reporters. Thus, it doesn't qualify as a blocker for F18 beta
17:38:13 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:39:04 <Martix> ack
17:39:20 <adamw> ack
17:39:22 <tflink> #agreed 860624 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly violate any of the F18 beta release criteria and there are few reporters. Thus, it doesn't qualify as a blocker for F18 beta
17:39:39 <tflink> #topic (745202) gnome-shell does not display correctly with NV3x adapters - multicolor corruption of panel, Shell-style menus and text [nvfx]
17:39:41 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=745202
17:39:44 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
17:40:34 <adamw> oh, this puppy again.
17:40:47 <Martix> I hitted this bug
17:41:23 <adamw> nv3x should still be blacklisted for shell.
17:41:29 <adamw> did you have to edit your card out of the blacklist to hit it?
17:41:41 <adamw> if so then we're fine, this was taken as a blocker last time with the 'fix' of blacklisting affected cards.
17:41:42 <Martix> adamw: yep, I'm very evil
17:42:18 <adamw> did you test with beta tc1, or the test day iso, or something else?
17:42:22 <Martix> llvmpipe is unusable on these old configurations
17:42:36 <tflink> so a default install will not be affected by this?
17:42:44 <adamw> hum, it used to be that if your card was blacklisted you got fallback, not llvmpipe shell.
17:42:46 <adamw> have they 'fixed' that now?
17:42:49 <Martix> adamw: updated alfa with nodebug kernel, same was on testday ISO
17:42:49 <Viking-Ice> "I don't really know what mesa version Fedora 18 will ship, the images so far included 8.1, but there are packages for 9.0 already on koji. The right thing to do here is blacklist NVFX for gnome shell. Sadly we are not exposing the 3D driver name in any way (the new driver is called nv30), so the blacklisting has to take the mesa version into account."
17:43:12 <adamw> ah, right. so we might need to adjust the blacklist...
17:43:14 <Viking-Ice> -1/-1
17:43:27 <Viking-Ice> it's not going to be fixed anyway
17:43:28 <adamw> if the blacklist breaks i'm +1 for fixing it
17:43:33 <adamw> otherwise -1
17:43:38 <adamw> let me go look at how we did the blacklist again
17:43:49 <tflink> it sounds like this is a request to unblacklist when mesa 9.0 is pulled in
17:44:05 <adamw> test day ISO has mesa 9
17:44:13 <adamw> so if it's still broken there, then mesa 9 didn't fix it.
17:44:53 <adamw> anyway, i think we can punt for info here
17:44:58 <adamw> i know the issue and can pull together an info request
17:45:00 <adamw> that ok with everyone?
17:45:16 <tflink> works for me
17:45:20 <Martix> ok
17:46:05 <tflink> proposd #agreed 745202 - We need more information on this bug before deciding on blocker status. If the blacklist is indeed broken for F18, this would qualify as a blocker
17:46:18 <Viking-Ice> ack
17:46:21 <akshayvyas> ack
17:46:34 <Martix> ack
17:46:52 <tflink> #info adamw to pull together an info request to figure out if the blacklist is indeed broken
17:46:57 <tflink> #agreed 745202 - We need more information on this bug before deciding on blocker status. If the blacklist is indeed broken for F18, this would qualify as a blocker
17:47:17 <tflink> #topic (844167) Error in PREIN scriptlet in rpm package libvirt-daemon-0.9.11.4-3.fc17.x86_64
17:47:20 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844167
17:47:23 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, ASSIGNED
17:49:47 <tflink> I think we need a bit more info on this - if people are hitting it on clean installs and if the new upgrade tool affects anything
17:50:28 <adamw> oh for the love of god, Kevin
17:51:14 <adamw> i would be extremely surprised if this affects the new upgrade tool, given that the bug is in f17's selinux-policy
17:51:24 <adamw> wwoods: will fedup run with selinux enabled?
17:53:03 <wwoods> adamw: sure. why wouldn't it?
17:54:01 <tflink> adamw: we could just punt until we can test w/ the new tool
17:54:27 <wwoods> I just ran a successful upgrade with it last night! wheeeeeee
17:54:51 <Martix> tflink: adamw: need to leave for 30 mins: +1 betablockers: 858837, 862925 +1 NTHs: 861646, 861746, 862925
17:55:07 <adamw> wwoods: i mean, will selinux be enforcing in the environment where fedup actually does the upgrade
17:55:14 <adamw> wwoods: i.e., is there any chance it's going to hit this bug
17:55:23 <tflink> Martix: ok, see you back in a bit :)
17:55:31 <wwoods> adamw: currently yes, it's enforcing
17:55:43 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844167 , where prein scripts that create users fail when run with f17 selinux-policy .
17:55:52 <adamw> oh bother. well then punt for testing, i guess. i was hoping we could say -1...
17:56:05 <wwoods> I'm not sure what bug you're talking about though.. 844167?
17:56:21 <wwoods> ah. yes. well.
17:56:23 <tflink> wwoods: yeah, that one
17:56:45 <adamw> if there's a chance it'll happen, better punt for testing.
17:57:00 <wwoods> might explain why my F18 system is a bit wonky.
17:57:22 <tflink> proposed #agreed 844167 - We need to test with the new upgrade tool before making a decision on blocker status. Will re-visit at a later date
17:57:50 <adamw> ack
17:57:58 <tflink> #agreed 844167 - We need to test with the new upgrade tool before making a decision on blocker status. Will re-visit at a later date
17:58:16 <tflink> #topic (861646) Sporadic GPU Lockups when Fast User Switching
17:58:16 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861646
17:58:17 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
17:59:04 <tflink> I'm -1 blocker on this
17:59:32 <adamw> yeah. if it turns out there's an Evil Genius bug causing multiple nouveau lockups then that's blocker candidate
17:59:41 <adamw> but we don't know there is yet, they could easily just be separate bugs.
17:59:50 <adamw> as things stand, -1.
18:00:18 <adamw> martix is -1/+1.
18:00:30 <adamw> i think maybe we should just give up on the NTH argument and leave it until bugs are expressly proposed as nth...
18:01:29 <tflink> proposed #agreed - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly hit any of the F18 beta release requirements and at the moment, seems to be limited to a small subset of hardware. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F18 beta
18:01:35 <adamw> ack
18:01:44 <tflink> adamw: yeah, I'm thinking the same thing
18:02:00 <tflink> if we get a rash of re-proposals, we can deal with that later
18:02:09 <Viking-Ice> ack
18:02:12 <tflink> unwarrented re-proposals, rather
18:02:26 <tflink> #agreed - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly hit any of the F18 beta release requirements and at the moment, seems to be limited to a small subset of hardware. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F18 beta
18:02:36 <tflink> #topic (861746) GDM login screen artefacts and corruption with Geforce 210
18:02:36 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861746
18:02:36 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
18:03:00 <adamw> play the tape again, joe!
18:03:10 <tflink> -1 blocker
18:03:32 <adamw> yeah, same deal.
18:03:39 <tflink> proposed #agreed 861746 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly hit any of the F18 beta release requirements and at the moment, seems to be limited to a small subset of hardware. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F18 beta.
18:03:45 <Viking-Ice> ack
18:03:50 <adamw> fwiw, i'll do some X triage later today and see if i can spot any patterns, if i can find the time.
18:03:57 <adamw> ack
18:03:58 * tflink forgot the bug number for the last #agreed, doesn't think it's important enough to go back for
18:04:08 <tflink> #agreed 861746 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly hit any of the F18 beta release requirements and at the moment, seems to be limited to a small subset of hardware. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F18 beta.
18:04:17 <tflink> #topic (858837) ATI Mobility Radeon X1350 doesn't boot LiveCD
18:04:17 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858837
18:04:17 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
18:05:53 <tflink> -1 blocker
18:06:23 <Viking-Ice> yup
18:06:45 <Southern_Gentlem> commonbug +1 blocker -1
18:06:46 <Viking-Ice> same thing I suppose
18:06:53 <tflink> proposed #agreed 858837 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly hit any of the F18 beta release requirements and at the moment, seems to be limited to a small subset of hardware. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F18 beta.
18:06:57 <Viking-Ice> ack
18:08:02 <tflink> other votes?
18:08:08 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
18:08:22 <Viking-Ice> adamw, HELLO!
18:08:24 <tflink> #agreed 858837 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't clearly hit any of the F18 beta release requirements and at the moment, seems to be limited to a small subset of hardware. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F18 beta.
18:08:27 <adamw> sorry, reading
18:08:35 <adamw> yeah, ack.
18:08:38 <tflink> #topic (862742) TypeError: coercing to Unicode: need string or buffer, NoneType found
18:08:41 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862742
18:08:43 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
18:08:44 <adamw> got a laggy connection for a minute there.
18:09:46 <adamw> "See bug 862741 for additional info."
18:09:47 <Viking-Ice> Hmm though we went through this one yesterday
18:10:04 <adamw> nah, i thought the same thing, but it's not.
18:10:24 <tflink> I see btrfs commands in the logs
18:10:24 <Southern_Gentlem> i dont understand this bug
18:10:25 <adamw> 862741 has the description
18:10:29 <adamw> so i think this is it:
18:10:42 <adamw> run anaconda (possibly only liveinst) on a system with an existing install to btrfs
18:10:49 <adamw> sounds like a problem with evaluating existing btrfs partitions
18:11:07 <Viking-Ice> yup
18:11:17 <adamw> i think this hits our new criterion
18:11:21 <Viking-Ice> yup
18:11:34 <adamw> "The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to a validly-formatted disk with sufficient empty space, using the empty space and installing a bootloader but leaving the pre-existing partitions and data untouched "
18:11:35 <adamw> or the alpha one
18:11:42 <adamw> either way, it should be able to cope with an existing, valid disk
18:11:46 <adamw> so, +1.
18:11:52 <Viking-Ice> +1
18:11:55 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
18:12:02 <Southern_Gentlem> i hate to say it
18:12:03 <adamw> i guess the alpha one's better
18:12:08 <adamw> " The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to any sufficiently large target disk, whether unformatted, empty, or containing any kind of existing data"
18:12:58 <tflink> proposed #agreed 862742 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to any sufficiently large target disk, whether unformatted, empty, or containing any kind of existing data"
18:13:09 <Viking-Ice> acvk
18:13:13 <Viking-Ice> the new ack
18:13:54 <adamw> acvk
18:13:57 * adamw follows the herd
18:14:13 <tflink> #agreed 862742 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic partitioning to any sufficiently large target disk, whether unformatted, empty, or containing any kind of existing data"
18:14:29 <tflink> #topic (862925) kernel: radeon 0000:01:05.0: GPU lockup CP stall for more than 10000msec
18:14:33 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862925
18:14:35 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
18:15:16 <tflink> Viking-Ice: I thought you were joking about proposing this as a blocker
18:15:17 <Viking-Ice> that's a pure regression with the offical 3.6+ kernel
18:15:31 <Viking-Ice> hence no
18:15:53 <Viking-Ice> airlied points finger at gfxterm
18:16:14 <adamw> still, not a blocker by the rules, unless it affects more systems...
18:16:35 <adamw> looks like it shouldn't be hard to nail down though since you've provided all the logs and a very small delta for the breakage
18:16:52 <adamw> between rc6 and rc7, right?
18:17:21 <Viking-Ice> no only with the official 3.6 release
18:17:30 <adamw> so between rc7 and final build? huh. interesting.
18:17:39 <tflink> Viking-Ice: I thought that HP had a way to upgrade firmware with bootable USB - it can be fun to find but AFAIK, it does exist
18:17:41 <adamw> anyhoo, still -1 for me.
18:17:48 <tflink> -1 here as well
18:18:15 <Viking-Ice> is the r600 uncommon hw
18:18:27 <Viking-Ice> does not dell ship that shit in masses ;)
18:18:37 <adamw> Viking-Ice: we don't know it affects all r600s.
18:18:40 <adamw> we only know it affects your laptop.
18:18:47 <Viking-Ice> i'm fine as long as it's fixed in final
18:18:56 <Viking-Ice> since it's a clear regression
18:18:57 <Southern_Gentlem> nth to me
18:19:03 <adamw> if it affected all r600s that might be a blocker, but only if we knew that.
18:19:11 <tflink> #agreed 862925 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't appear to affect enough hardware to qualify as a blocker for F18 beta. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F18 beta.
18:19:16 <tflink> whoops
18:19:20 <tflink> #undo
18:19:20 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x15387dd0>
18:19:25 <tflink> proposed #agreed 862925 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't appear to affect enough hardware to qualify as a blocker for F18 beta. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F18 beta.
18:19:35 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
18:19:37 <Viking-Ice> ack
18:19:48 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
18:20:04 <Southern_Gentlem> as rejected
18:20:08 <adamw> acvk
18:20:21 <tflink> #agreed 862925 - RejectedBlocker - This doesn't appear to affect enough hardware to qualify as a blocker for F18 beta. Thus, rejected as a blocker for F18 beta.
18:20:31 <tflink> #topic (862537) Fedora 18 Beta TC1 DVD fails to boot
18:20:31 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862537
18:20:31 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
18:21:26 <Southern_Gentlem> is there a newer tc?
18:21:39 <adamw> not yet
18:21:44 <adamw> i filed the tc2 request late last night
18:21:52 <adamw> after being derailed by an attack of amateur literary criticism
18:21:58 <adamw> dgilmore didn't get to building it yet, looks like
18:22:01 <adamw> this is an obvious +1
18:22:19 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 hopefully easy fix
18:22:36 <adamw> oh, dgilmore says he can't compose today, so i guess we get tc2 tomorrow.
18:22:47 <adamw> unless nirik wants to do it.
18:22:52 <Viking-Ice> +1
18:23:15 <tflink> proposed #agreed 862537 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods"
18:23:26 <tflink> ack/nak/patch?
18:23:31 <Viking-Ice> ackiddy ackiddy
18:23:37 <adamw> acvk
18:23:51 <tflink> wow, I'm glad that I don't have to parse acks w/ a regexp
18:23:56 <Southern_Gentlem> ack if it has been fix
18:24:17 <adamw> tflink: i was just thinking that =)
18:24:31 <Southern_Gentlem> ack if it has not been fix
18:24:41 <tflink> #agreed 862537 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion: "The installer must boot (if appropriate) and run on all primary architectures, with all system firmware types that are common on those architectures, from default live image, DVD, and boot.iso install media when written to an optical disc and when written to a USB stick with at least one of the officially supported methods"
18:24:48 <tflink> #topic (853508) PXE-install won't boot
18:24:48 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853508
18:24:48 <tflink> #info Proposed Blocker, NEW
18:24:48 <Southern_Gentlem> how was this not fixed in alpha
18:25:00 <dgilmore> adamw: i sorted it out
18:25:06 <dgilmore> i just need to put it in place
18:25:09 <tflink> Southern_Gentlem: this particualr issue happened with a grub update recently
18:25:40 <Viking-Ice> blocker
18:26:00 <Southern_Gentlem> so it needs to bechanged to beta not alpha blocker
18:26:03 <tflink> I think this needs more testing
18:26:08 <Southern_Gentlem> symantics i know
18:26:17 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: what does?
18:26:20 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 block
18:26:22 <adamw> this is proposed as a beta blocker, not alpha.
18:26:28 <Viking-Ice> tflink, some one to confirm
18:26:35 <Viking-Ice> did not kparal do that already?
18:26:41 <tflink> I think he did
18:26:44 <Southern_Gentlem> #agreed 862537 - AcceptedBlocker - Violates the following F18 alpha release criterion
18:27:00 <tflink> Southern_Gentlem: anything that can block alpha can block beta
18:27:07 <Southern_Gentlem> ok
18:27:08 <adamw> kparal filed a pass for PXE for Beta tc1/
18:27:13 <tflink> it's a beta blocker because it violates an alpha release criterion
18:27:33 <adamw> oh, i see. yeah, tflink is right.
18:27:47 <adamw> on this bug, yeah, kparal filed a pass. so apparently this isn't as simple as 'pxe is busted'.
18:27:52 <adamw> so in that case, needs more info, i guess.
18:28:13 <Viking-Ice> or retest with b-tc1
18:28:20 <Viking-Ice> have the reporter that is
18:28:26 <tflink> proposed #agreed 853508 - PXE has been reported as working for F18 beta TC1, request retesting from the reporter to determine more details on what, if anything, is still broken
18:28:32 <adamw> ack
18:28:37 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
18:28:39 <Viking-Ice> ack
18:28:48 <tflink> proposed #agreed 853508 - This needs more testing before deciding on blocker status. PXE has been reported as working for F18 beta TC1, request retesting from the reporter to determine more details on what, if anything, is still broken
18:28:52 <tflink> making it more clear
18:28:57 <tflink> assuming acks stand
18:28:59 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
18:29:07 <tflink> #agreed 853508 - This needs more testing before deciding on blocker status. PXE has been reported as working for F18 beta TC1, request retesting from the reporter to determine more details on what, if anything, is still broken
18:29:19 <tflink> guess what? we're done with the proposed blockers!
18:29:26 <Southern_Gentlem> this could be the reprters pxe setup
18:30:30 <Viking-Ice> are we done with the proposed blockers now?
18:30:40 <tflink> according to my list, yes
18:31:17 <Southern_Gentlem> when the new tc comes out i will test the pxe boot
18:31:22 <adamw> someone pass the gin
18:31:24 <Viking-Ice> smoking...
18:31:27 <tflink> accepted blockers or proposed NTH next?
18:31:46 <tflink> or just adjurn until next week?
18:31:51 <adamw> oh, we're getting TC2 now
18:31:54 <adamw> not tomorrow
18:31:56 <Southern_Gentlem> adamw, everclear damnit ;)
18:31:57 <adamw> whee
18:32:18 <Viking-Ice> let's continue and take the proposed nth
18:32:23 <adamw> do you have a list of acceptedblockers that isn't the ones we accepted today and yesterday?
18:32:27 <Viking-Ice> once I have done smoking ;)
18:32:28 <adamw> we'd waste a lot of time going through those
18:32:38 <adamw> i don't think proposed nth is necessary at this point since we aren't frozen
18:32:54 <Viking-Ice> it's only 5
18:32:58 <tflink> I still have yesterday's list, yes
18:33:05 <adamw> nth status only starts mattering after the freeze, which would be just before the next meeting
18:33:23 <adamw> how many on the acceptedblocker review list?
18:33:39 <tflink> same number - which makes me suspect that some of them have been closed
18:33:49 <adamw> so 5/5?
18:33:56 <tflink> 13
18:33:59 <adamw> oh.
18:34:11 <tflink> there are 5 proposed NTH
18:34:23 <adamw> i vote we do the acceptedblockers then, and see how far we get
18:34:48 <tflink> wait, I opened the wrong file
18:34:58 <tflink> there were 7 accepted blockers when we started yesterday
18:35:18 <adamw> go for it!
18:35:25 <tflink> #topic (824191) nfsiso install hangs during reboot
18:35:25 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824191
18:35:25 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, NEW
18:36:17 <tflink> no movement
18:36:19 <adamw> hum.
18:36:29 <adamw> i also note that we asked people to re-test, no-one did, but then we took it as a blocker anyway...
18:36:59 <adamw> there is a beta tc1 failure for nfsiso, though, with a new report
18:37:02 <tflink> #info no movement on this since 20120706
18:37:04 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862996
18:37:22 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 blocker
18:37:29 <adamw> that's combined pxe/nfsiso, though
18:37:38 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: we're not deciding blocker status now, we're checking for progress on accepted blockers.
18:37:44 <Southern_Gentlem> ok
18:37:59 <adamw> we probably need to ask for more testing on this one, in a straightforward nfsiso setup.
18:38:01 <tflink> #info this really needs re-testing to determine whether it has been fixed or if there are new issues
18:38:38 <tflink> #info 862996 could be related but that is PXE/nfsiso combined. Would prefer to see retesting with just NFSISO
18:38:46 <tflink> anything else I'm missing?
18:39:02 <adamw> that's all i got
18:39:16 <tflink> #topic (853877) anaconda ignores language / keyboard settings
18:39:16 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853877
18:39:16 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, NEW
18:40:10 <tflink> I do believe that this is still being worked on
18:40:41 <tflink> nvm, I'm thinking of a different bug
18:40:47 * Martix is back
18:41:06 <Viking-Ice> should we not atleast give the accepted blockers from yesterday a week to be work on ?
18:41:11 <adamw> we need status from anaconda team on this
18:41:12 <tflink> there has been no movement on this since 2012-09-13
18:41:20 <tflink> #info there has been no movement on this since 2012-09-13
18:41:20 <adamw> Viking-Ice: we are, we're just looking at the ones which were accepted prior to yesterday
18:41:36 <tflink> #info we need status from anaconda devs for this bug
18:41:42 <tflink> anyone feel like taking an action?
18:42:20 <adamw> i'm doing them as we go.
18:42:26 <adamw> this one's done already.
18:42:33 <tflink> I supposed that status in the bug is good enough
18:42:49 <tflink> #topic (855526) f18a tc6 anaconda cannot connect to a protected wireless network
18:42:51 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855526
18:42:54 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, NEW
18:43:19 <tflink> #info there has been no movement on this wince 2012-09-23
18:43:27 <tflink> #undo
18:43:27 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2c3ead90>
18:43:30 <tflink> #info there has been no movement on this since 2012-09-23
18:43:54 <tflink> have there been changes in NM on the installer since then?
18:44:16 <adamw> i haven't checked
18:44:21 <adamw> i guess this needs re-testing with tc1
18:44:24 <adamw> or tc2, which now exists.
18:44:46 <tflink> #info it would be good to see re-testing with beta TC2 if there have been changes in networking config in the installer
18:45:01 <tflink> #topic (855849) could not UEFI boot F18 Alpha (TC6 through RC3) DVD or netinst written to optical disc or dd'ed to USB: /dev/root does not exist
18:45:04 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=855849
18:45:07 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, VERIFIED
18:45:40 <tflink> #info this has been VERIFIED, waiting for push to stable
18:45:50 <tflink> #topic (849707) AttributeError: 'BTRFSVolumeDevice' object has no attribute 'isMagic'
18:45:53 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=849707
18:45:56 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, ON_QA
18:46:32 <tflink> it appears as if this particular bug has been fixed
18:46:41 <adamw> yeah
18:46:46 <tflink> #info reported to be fixed, only to hit another BTRFS related bug
18:46:47 <adamw> set to VERIFIED
18:47:06 <tflink> #info set to VERIFIED, will be closed when next anaconda is pushed to stable
18:47:19 <tflink> #topic (856225) PackageKit can't import Fedora GPG key
18:47:19 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856225
18:47:19 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, MODIFIED
18:47:47 <tflink> sounds like this one is in the same boat
18:48:03 <tflink> gah, list is from yesterday
18:48:09 <tflink> #undo
18:48:09 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x2c3eac50>
18:48:15 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, VERIFIED
18:48:37 <tflink> #info fix has been VERIFIED, will be closed when rpm build with fix is pushed to stable
18:48:48 <tflink> #topic (859285) initrd is used in grub2 for efi system (initrdefi should be used)
18:48:51 <tflink> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859285
18:48:52 * adamw trying to catch up
18:48:54 <tflink> #info Accepted Blocker, MODIFIED
18:49:18 <adamw> looks like this is VERIFIED.
18:49:33 <adamw> or, should be.
18:49:56 <tflink> #info this has been reported as fixed, can likely be moved to VERIFIED
18:50:06 <tflink> #undo
18:50:06 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x26786210>
18:50:24 <tflink> #info this has been reported to be fixed by the original reporter - move to VERIFIED
18:50:49 <tflink> OK, that's all of the accepted blockers that we had yesterday
18:51:16 <Southern_Gentlem> so how many beta blockers are there
18:51:37 <adamw> I count 15 accepted.
18:51:39 <tflink> 15 accepted and 14 proposed as of 20 minutes ago
18:52:02 <adamw> so i guess we can do proposed nth if we're still alive...
18:52:20 <Viking-Ice> I was planning on going home after no more then 5 minutes
18:52:26 <Viking-Ice> from work that is
18:52:45 <tflink> anyone else willing to stick around for the 5 proposed NTH?
18:53:10 <tflink> if it's just adamw and I, I'd say leave them for now
18:53:19 <adamw> like i said, it's not terribly important to do them till the freeze.
18:53:32 <Southern_Gentlem> tflink,  call it a day while you can
18:53:51 <Viking-Ice> later people
18:54:11 <Southern_Gentlem> and might be a good idea to move the meeting so its not against the infrastructure meeting
18:54:39 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: it's usually wednesday.
18:54:43 <adamw> this is the overflow from yesterday.
18:55:04 <adamw> we did 4 hours yesterday and 3 today, it would've been 7 hours if we hadn't broken it up...
18:55:14 <Martix> 861646, 861746, 862925, 858837 all of them were rejected? no NTH? :-/
18:55:14 <tflink> #topic open floor
18:55:27 <tflink> Martix: we decided not to vote on NTH right now
18:55:37 <adamw> Martix: we decided to just punt on the nth stuff for now and evaluate them if they're proposed
18:55:42 <adamw> maybe propose them if fixes actually show up
18:56:08 <adamw> Martix: i'll try and do some X triage so the devs have a proper priority ordering - when we do X triage properly, they can order work by the severity rating of the bugs
18:56:12 <Martix> I'll ask devs
18:56:17 * tflink considers proposing the gfx bug on his laptop as a blocker
18:56:27 <Martix> adamw: your plan is better
18:56:27 <adamw> tflink: i accept beer bribes
18:56:39 <tflink> adamw: I would happily bribe someone to fix this damn bug
18:56:50 <tflink> not sure what I'm going to do when F16 goes EOL
18:57:13 <Southern_Gentlem> tflink,  try my F17 updated lives
18:57:16 <tflink> I don't have the time to learn how to fix it and I can't use anything newer than 3.1 RC1
18:57:40 <tflink> and I don't really want to tempt fate with a 3.0.x custom kernel on post F16
18:57:52 <tflink> but I digress ... and whine
18:58:29 <adamw> tflink: oh, i can only be bribed to make it a blocker, not to fix it
18:58:31 <Southern_Gentlem> i had a member of my LUUG who couldnt use the default image but everything in the respin worked for him
18:58:36 <adamw> you'd have to bribe ajax to fix it
18:58:40 <adamw> happily he takes beer bribes too
18:58:56 <tflink> Southern_Gentlem: I've been testing some more recent kernels, not sure what the last one I tried was, though
18:59:21 <Southern_Gentlem> respins have 3.5-2
18:59:21 <tflink> but this is only a subset of intel 4500 graphics and I think it's only this model of laptop
19:00:08 <adamw> tflink: mail ajax your laptop.
19:00:20 <tflink> come to think of it, I need to rebuild. I'm still running 3.0.0-19
19:01:01 <tflink> anyhow, it's time to kill this meeting with fire
19:01:09 <adamw> that's my favourite part!
19:01:36 <tflink> #info next blocker review meeting will be 2012-10-10 @ 16:00 UTC in #fedora-qa
19:01:58 * tflink assumes there is nothing else and lights fuse that's just long enough for him to run away
19:02:04 * tflink will send out minutes shortly
19:02:09 * adamw tramples tflink in the rush
19:02:10 <tflink> Thanks for coming, everyone!
19:02:14 <tflink> #endmeeting