16:00:03 <roshi> #startmeeting F22-blocker-review
16:00:03 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr  6 16:00:03 2015 UTC.  The chair is roshi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:03 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:03 <roshi> #meetingname F22-blocker-review
16:00:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f22-blocker-review'
16:00:03 <roshi> #topic Roll Call
16:00:08 <adamw> ahoy
16:00:11 <roshi> who's around for some blocker review!
16:00:14 <roshi> ?
16:01:00 <roshi> #chair adamw
16:01:00 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw roshi
16:01:11 * satellit listening
16:01:36 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
16:01:36 * nirik is lurking around
16:01:39 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:02:01 <roshi> #chair nirik sgallagh
16:02:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw nirik roshi sgallagh
16:02:16 <roshi> there, now you can lurk from a chair - much more comfortable
16:02:30 <sgallagh> /me prefers to lurk in the shadows
16:02:51 <roshi> so move the chair back to the shadows - it's not bolted down
16:03:08 <roshi> sheesh, give a guy a chair and he whines that it's in the wrong place
16:03:15 <sgallagh> :)
16:03:19 <roshi> :p
16:03:26 <roshi> alright, boilerplate
16:03:28 <roshi> #topic Introduction
16:03:28 <roshi> Why are we here?
16:03:28 <roshi> #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.
16:03:32 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:03:35 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:03:37 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:03:40 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:03:42 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:03:45 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:03:48 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:03:51 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Final_Release_Criteria
16:04:22 <roshi> alright, beta blockers - we have 8 proposed
16:04:26 <roshi> first up:
16:04:27 <roshi> #topic (1185117) Custom partitioning does not allow convenient removal of volume including snapshots (btrfs, LVM)
16:04:30 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185117
16:04:32 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:04:41 <nirik> custom is blocking?
16:04:42 * tflink is late and lurking
16:04:45 * nirik reads bug
16:05:09 * amita is late
16:06:07 <danofsatx-lt> hola, still putting out fires
16:06:34 <adamw> we have some criteria for custom at beta, yeah.
16:07:10 <adamw> this was previously approved, anaconda team disagreed and wanted it re-evaluated.
16:07:37 <adamw> there's some discussion on the ML too.
16:08:11 <adamw> i'm ok with -1 on the basis that this isn't really a bugfix exactly, but extending anaconda to cover a case it currently doesn't. it's not like we have code for this and it's broken.
16:08:13 * nirik will abstain. I don't think I have time to read all the discussion here.
16:08:17 <sgallagh> Purely based on the likelihood (or lack thereof) of this situation being encountered, I'm -1 blocker
16:08:59 <adamw> sgallagh: eh, i think anaconda are kinda overstating that. as cmurf says you can hit it just installing Fedora over a stock openSUSE install.
16:09:03 <sgallagh> Also, given that the anaconda folks have asserted that addressing such a thing at this point is a non-starter, doing otherwise seems like shooting ourselves in the foot.
16:09:08 <roshi> yeah
16:09:08 <adamw> (since SUSE uses btrfs snaphots ootb now.)
16:09:20 <roshi> and it works in guided w/o a problem?
16:09:44 <adamw> roshi: yeah, because guided is more about removing actual partitions than parsing them into 'volumes' that are part of OSes.
16:10:16 <roshi> I just wouldn't think that guided could do something that manual couldn't
16:11:01 <roshi> comment #18 has solid points
16:11:12 <roshi> I can't really argue with the logic there
16:11:21 <adamw> eh, it's just a happenstance because somewhat different approaches happen to make sense for guided vs. custom
16:11:45 <adamw> i think i'm about halfway between cmurf and anaconda team.
16:12:18 <roshi> I'm closer to cmurf than anaconda
16:12:28 <sgallagh> I'm closer to anaconda than cmurf
16:12:36 <sgallagh> Can we split the difference with +1 FE? :)
16:12:45 <adamw> not being able to remove a 'volume' in the technical sense of a particular storage technology isn't really a big deal, as I said, when the criteria say 'volume' they're using it in a vaguer, less technical sense. (i.e. it shouldn't be a blocker than you can't explicitly delete a VG).
16:12:59 <adamw> sgallagh: i don't think FE is appropriate or useful here
16:13:15 <sgallagh> adamw: I feel the same way about "blocker", considering that no one is planning to work on it.
16:13:22 <adamw> we wouldn't want to be dumping in a major change to partitioning as an FE, and given that anaconda team says they won't be able to get it done in time anyway...
16:13:56 <adamw> sgallagh: well, the question is do we believe this is a big enough issue and a clear enough violation of criteria that we should kick off an argument with anaconda about it, drag it into fesco, etc.
16:13:59 <adamw> so, i'm saying -1 for now.
16:14:00 <roshi> I think it's just as cmurf said. it's a reasonable blocker considering the criteria, just an impractical given the timeframe
16:14:21 <sgallagh> If the people who need to do the work say they can't do it in F22, then making it a blocker is just declaring F22 delayed for no good purpose.
16:15:13 <sgallagh> And if it's a major partitioning change, sanity tells me that this should happen before Alpha
16:15:17 <roshi> I think it's a violation of the criteria, and hence a blocker - but I don't know that we could get anywhere with it and anaconda has said as much
16:15:20 <sgallagh> For time to shake things out
16:16:42 <roshi> so, not sure what to do with this one
16:16:49 <adamw> i'm actually ok with -1 per the criteria. you *can* remove the devices. it's just troublesome.
16:17:06 <roshi> but noting that it's not an issue of technically blockery-ish, but other factors
16:18:41 <roshi> 3k clicks I think hits squarely on the "reduces test coverage" catch all
16:18:49 <roshi> but this is academic
16:18:53 <adamw> if you want a different argument, we can say it's a conditional violation but we don't think there are enough scenarios where snapshotting is likely to be used that we consider it a blocker.
16:19:02 <adamw> roshi: where are you getting 3k clicks from?
16:19:17 <roshi> a weak -1 because it's potentially "possible" to do and other factors
16:19:27 <roshi> first comment
16:19:36 <roshi> 4 clicks to delete a mount point
16:19:49 <roshi> and 40 instances with 19 mount points each
16:20:09 <adamw> in #c18 he said 56, so, i dunno.
16:20:17 * nirik thinks if you are doing that in the gui instead of ks you are...
16:20:17 <adamw> my opensuse install doesn't have 19 mount points.
16:20:23 <adamw> anyhow
16:20:42 <adamw> let's just write something down and move on, it seems clear we're not going to take a heroic stand on this one.
16:22:12 <sgallagh> proposed #agreed "This is a conditional violation of the criterion "must be able to remove volumes", but it is an uncommon situation and too technically complex to resolve in Fedora 22"
16:22:22 <adamw> sure, wfm.
16:22:27 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1185117 - RejectedBlocker Beta - This bug doesn't technically violate the criterion, it's just burdensome to execute with manual partitioning. Not many people will run into this...
16:22:33 <roshi> ok, stopping my typing :)
16:22:37 <roshi> ack
16:22:38 * adamw would ack either.
16:23:08 <sgallagh> proposed #agreed - 1185117 - RejectedBlocker Beta - This is a conditional violation of the criterion "must be able to remove volumes", but it is an uncommon situation and too technically complex to resolve in Fedora 22
16:23:09 <sgallagh> (formatting correction)
16:24:43 <roshi> ack
16:24:45 <roshi> ship it
16:24:56 <nirik> ack
16:25:09 <adamw> sure
16:25:55 <adamw> did anyone volunteer to secretarialize yet?
16:26:02 <sgallagh> no
16:26:03 <adamw> sgallagh: you have chair, you can #agreed.
16:26:04 <roshi> nope
16:26:05 <adamw> i'll do it, then
16:26:10 <sgallagh> #agreed - 1185117 - RejectedBlocker Beta - This is a conditional violation of the criterion "must be able to remove volumes", but it is an uncommon situation and too technically complex to resolve in Fedora 22
16:26:22 <sgallagh> next!
16:26:27 <roshi> it's become procedure to not get secretary until after the first bug is discussed
16:26:30 <roshi> :p
16:26:30 <roshi> #topic (1206472) AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'set_focus_vadjustment'
16:26:34 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206472
16:26:36 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
16:28:05 <nirik> so this is any install using proxy?
16:28:12 <roshi> looks like it
16:28:19 * roshi finds an exact criteria
16:28:30 <nirik> yeah, seems pretty blockery to me off hand
16:28:54 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm prepared to call this a blocker even without official criteria :)
16:29:08 <roshi> +1 under "When using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to use HTTP, FTP and NFS repositories as package sources." w/ proxy
16:29:17 <nirik> +1 blocker
16:29:17 <sgallagh> +1 blocker
16:29:21 <adamw> +1
16:29:27 <nirik> from the post, sounds like a fix is hopefully in hand too?
16:29:33 <sgallagh> Yeah
16:29:53 <sgallagh> It's in POST, so presumably that means a patch is waiting for the next build
16:29:57 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1206472 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the following criteria when using a proxy: "When using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to use HTTP, FTP and NFS repositories as package sources."
16:30:13 <sgallagh> Ack
16:30:14 <adamw> ack
16:30:14 <nirik> ack
16:30:20 <roshi> #agreed - 1206472 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the following criteria when using a proxy: "When using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to use HTTP, FTP and NFS repositories as package sources."
16:30:28 <roshi> #topic (1208979) LUKSError: luks device not configured
16:30:28 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208979
16:30:28 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:31:27 * nirik reads.
16:31:51 <adamw> eh, feels final-ish to me.
16:32:05 <nirik> yeah, again in custom...
16:32:07 <adamw> nirik: re-use an existing encrypted root.
16:32:16 <nirik> but I agree it shouldn't crash...
16:32:40 <adamw> +1 FE, for a fix that anaconda team says is safe.
16:32:44 <adamw> (if there is one).
16:33:10 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Beta_Release_Criteria#Custom_partitioning
16:33:42 <adamw> i'd say call it a conditional violation of "Assign mount points to existing storage volumes" and say we decided it's appropriate for Final.
16:33:44 <nirik> yeah, I'm +1 FE...
16:33:55 <sgallagh> adamw: Seems reasonable
16:34:02 <roshi> so beta FE and final blocker?
16:34:08 <roshi> that'd be my vote
16:34:13 <adamw> yeah, for me
16:34:15 <nirik> I don't think this is really a "newly created" storage volume
16:34:24 <nirik> it's a reformat of an existing one
16:34:52 <adamw> yeah, he cited the wrong bit of the criterion, but doesn't really matter.
16:35:03 <nirik> anyhow, yes, +1 FE, +1 final.
16:35:15 <sgallagh> Ditto, +1 FE, +1 Final Blocker
16:35:47 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1208979 - AcceptedFreezeException Beta AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug conditionally violates the custom partition criterion for final but we would accept a fix for Beta during freeze.
16:36:09 <sgallagh> Ack
16:36:12 <nirik> ack
16:37:47 <roshi> #agreed - 1208979 - AcceptedFreezeException Beta AcceptedBlocker Final - This bug conditionally violates the custom partition criterion for final but we would accept a fix for Beta during freeze.
16:37:53 <roshi> #topic (1209140) Upgrades from Fedora 21 break tomcat service
16:37:53 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209140
16:37:54 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, dogtag-pki, NEW
16:38:15 <sgallagh> I'm withdrawing my blocker nomination here.
16:38:33 <sgallagh> Nothing to see here, move along :)
16:38:39 <nirik> cool. ;)
16:38:51 <roshi> wfm
16:39:08 <nirik> blockers that magically get fixed are great. ;)
16:39:37 <sgallagh> Aren't they?
16:39:42 <roshi> #agreed - This bug isn't a blocker any more, nomination withdrawn.
16:39:45 <roshi> #topic (1164492) Please drop libvirt 'default' network dependency for F22
16:39:48 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164492
16:39:51 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-boxes, NEW
16:39:57 <roshi> sgallagh: find more like those :p
16:41:22 <adamw> oh, this ol' chestnut.
16:41:33 <adamw> sure, +1 as per f21
16:41:35 <nirik> old bug back from the dead.
16:41:37 <adamw> let's give this a recurring +1
16:41:40 <nirik> yeah, +1
16:41:53 <adamw> nirik: it's not exactly 'back from the dead', it's more that we have to do a dodge around it each release until someone comes up with a better idea
16:41:59 <nirik> right
16:42:24 <roshi> wfm
16:42:48 <nirik> where is the actual action here?
16:42:52 <nirik> in boxes?
16:43:24 <adamw> libvirt, iirc.
16:43:26 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1164492 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - We're reaffirming this bugs status from F21 to F22. The end result of this bug is bad enough that it warrants blocker status to get the fix in for beta.
16:43:34 <adamw> oh no, that's right, boxes
16:43:42 <adamw> so the lives don't have the libvirt default network set up
16:43:48 <adamw> ack
16:43:55 <nirik> we should make sure and ping boxes folks, they might not be aware this is blocking us. ;)
16:43:56 <nirik> ack
16:44:15 <sgallagh> ack, I guess
16:44:24 <roshi> #agreed - 1164492 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - We're reaffirming this bugs status from F21 to F22. The end result of this bug is bad enough that it warrants blocker status to get the fix in for beta.
16:44:27 <sgallagh> I'll have a chat with them; I think I might have an idea how to actually *fix* the problem
16:44:40 <roshi> that'd be good
16:44:44 <roshi> thanks sgallagh
16:44:45 <roshi> #topic (1205534) gnome-initial-setup crashes upon selecting language
16:44:49 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205534
16:44:51 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
16:45:06 * adamw had this open in firefox all week and never got around to trying to reproduce it
16:45:22 <adamw> did anyone else?
16:45:32 <nirik> not i
16:45:43 * roshi reads
16:46:09 <roshi> I didn't
16:46:15 <roshi> should test with TC8
16:46:30 <roshi> defer until I can reproduce this and then vote in bug?
16:46:37 * roshi starts a workstation download
16:47:25 <adamw> yeah, punt for reproducing.
16:47:29 <adamw> if no-one can reproduce, -1.
16:47:33 <sgallagh> ack
16:47:44 <nirik> yeah.
16:47:54 <nirik> been like 10 days since the reporter said anything there...
16:48:01 <nirik> you would think others would have hit it before now.
16:48:18 <adamw> yeah,.
16:48:19 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1205534 - Punt - Waiting until someone can reproduce and then will discuss in comments.
16:48:29 <adamw> so i'm not overly worried, but i really will try and get to it this week...
16:48:36 <roshi> mayhap I'll get this done by the end of the meeting
16:48:57 <sgallagh> /me is also downloading TC8
16:49:59 <roshi> acks?
16:50:04 <adamw> ack
16:50:08 <nirik> ack
16:50:08 <roshi> #agreed - 1205534 - Punt - Waiting until someone can reproduce and then will discuss in comments.
16:50:22 <roshi> #topic (1146232) No network connection in virtual guest when libvirt in the guest tries to use the same IP address range as the host (still can occur when live image used to deploy both host and guest)
16:50:26 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146232
16:50:29 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, libvirt, NEW
16:50:39 <nirik> is this the same as the previous one?
16:51:00 <adamw> it's the parent, more or less.
16:51:03 <adamw> i don't think we need both as blockers
16:51:08 <adamw> lemme see if cole's around to join us
16:51:26 <nirik> yeah, this is the longer term fix it right one?
16:51:35 <nirik> in which case it shouldn't be a blocker probibly.
16:51:40 * adamw pinged him
16:52:50 * roshi gives him a minute
16:52:56 <adamw> hi cole!
16:52:58 <crobinso> adamw: hey
16:53:13 <adamw> crobinso: we're just wondering if both this bug (#1146232) and #1164492 need to block beta
16:53:21 <adamw> or if beta is OK if we just take the 'fix' for 1164492
16:54:14 <crobinso> adamw: only the boxes one should be a blocked IMO
16:54:20 <crobinso> so 1164492
16:55:01 <crobinso> the libvirt issue is tracking the 'proper' fix but until it exists we aren't sure how it's even going to work, or how maintainable it is, etc.
16:55:06 <adamw> ok, so -1.
16:55:16 <sgallagh> WFM. -1
16:55:22 <roshi> -1 it is
16:56:04 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1146232 - RejectedBlocker Beta - This bug is already covered under RHBZ#1164492 and doesn't need to be listed as another blocker.
16:56:20 <nirik> ack
16:57:05 <sgallagh> ack
16:57:33 <roshi> #agreed - 1146232 - RejectedBlocker Beta - This bug is already covered under RHBZ#1164492 and doesn't need to be listed as another blocker.
16:57:37 <roshi> last beta one
16:57:43 <roshi> #topic (1208536) Problems recognizing BIOS RAID devices
16:57:43 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208536
16:57:43 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, POST
16:58:09 <adamw> i'm working through this with mulhern, basically everything i hit until we actually get a successful fw raid install is going to wind up on this bug
16:58:47 <roshi> +1 for this
16:59:02 <nirik> the raid trail of tears. ;)
16:59:26 <nirik> +1
16:59:54 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1208536 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta raid criterion: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices."
17:00:02 <nirik> ack
17:00:06 <roshi> nothing like bugs that procreate like rabbits...
17:00:49 <sgallagh> roshi: I think it's more "whack-a-mole", but yeah. +1 and ack
17:01:16 * roshi notes sgallagh is more comfortable whacking moles than baby rabbits
17:01:21 <adamw> ack
17:01:38 <roshi> #agreed - 1208536 - AcceptedBlocker Beta - This bug is a clear violation of the Beta raid criterion: "The installer must be able to detect and install to hardware or firmware RAID storage devices."
17:01:56 <roshi> onto the FEs?
17:02:10 <nirik> sure
17:02:32 <adamw> sure
17:02:41 * roshi is testing 1205534 now
17:02:47 <sgallagh> Ditto
17:02:49 <roshi> #topic (1208863) I got gdm after g-i-s is finished. The original session doesn't exit.
17:02:52 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208863
17:02:55 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
17:04:08 <adamw> if this is reproducible it seems FE-y for sure
17:04:15 <sgallagh> roshi: Ditto, my g-i-s worked fine
17:04:29 <adamw> if your g-i-s doesn't crash can you see if you hit this bug? :)
17:04:43 <nirik> does the power down list a warning? or does it prevent you from powering down at all?
17:05:06 <sgallagh> I do indeed
17:05:16 <sgallagh> I can verify this, yes
17:05:34 <sgallagh> nirik: It lists a warning that another user is logged in
17:05:44 <roshi> lang selection didn't crash anything for me
17:05:45 <nirik> right. So, really I am not sure how critical this is...
17:05:48 <sgallagh> It still allows you to shut down
17:05:54 <sgallagh> I'm inclined to say -1 FE
17:06:05 <sgallagh> There's no good reason to worry about it during freeze
17:06:11 <roshi> german translation on buttosn has some quirks though, that's for sure...
17:06:23 <nirik> yeah.
17:06:43 <sgallagh> /me reiterates his opinion that the German language evolved from an excess of ink.
17:06:50 <adamw> i dunno, it seems like it'd be good to make it work the way it's supposed to.
17:07:07 <sgallagh> adamw: I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying it's not worth breaking freeze to fix it
17:07:33 <sgallagh> (noting that every GDM change historically introduces two unintended consequences)
17:07:37 <nirik> we could always not take the fix, but... seems like we wouldn't want to destablize gdm or g-i-s any anyhow
17:07:40 <roshi> finishing install to see if I have this issue as well
17:10:52 <roshi> configuring installled system...
17:13:13 <roshi> gdm is still running in tty1
17:13:23 <roshi> tty3 is where my user gets logged into though
17:13:55 <roshi> so, I can reproduce
17:14:49 <adamw> this bug isn't 'gdm still running'
17:14:58 <adamw> this bug is 'g-i-s doesn't hand off to a logged-in user session after creating a user'
17:14:59 <adamw> (afaics)
17:15:23 <roshi> yeah
17:15:33 <roshi> it keeps you logged in there as well
17:15:36 <adamw> anyhow, i'm a mild +1 but don't mind if you all go -1.
17:16:20 <nirik> it seems kinda polishy... doesn't really cause any doom, just a warning.
17:16:25 <sgallagh> I'm going -1 simply because it's not harmful
17:16:32 <sgallagh> And any change made to GDM might be
17:16:35 <roshi> yeah
17:16:41 <roshi> -1 to breaking freeze
17:17:32 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1208863 - RejectedFreezeException - This bug doesn't cause any actual *harm*, so not worth breaking freeze for.
17:17:38 <sgallagh> Ack
17:17:44 <adamw> ack
17:17:56 <roshi> #agreed - 1208863 - RejectedFreezeException - This bug doesn't cause any actual *harm*, so not worth breaking freeze for.
17:18:14 <roshi> #topic (1204677) CVE-2015-2331 php: libzip: integer overflow when processing ZIP archives [fedora-all]
17:18:17 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204677
17:18:21 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, libzip, ON_QA
17:18:32 <adamw> oh php.
17:19:14 <sgallagh> /me wonders why "running PHP" isn't a CVE on its own...
17:19:16 <roshi> also, don't forget to vote in 1205534 - which I couldn't reproduce
17:19:27 <nirik> this is a 'important' level security bug...
17:19:35 <nirik> so I guess it's +1 by the policy?
17:19:40 <adamw> sgallagh: heh. CVE-1998:2030 php: PHP
17:19:42 <nirik> or is that only final?
17:19:44 <sgallagh> Yeah +1
17:19:46 <roshi> afaict
17:19:48 <roshi> +1
17:19:49 <sgallagh> adamw: I'm so filing it.
17:20:06 <adamw> +1
17:20:27 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1204677 - AcceptedFreezeException Beta - It would be good to get this fix in despite freeze.
17:20:32 <adamw> ack
17:20:33 <sgallagh> Ack
17:20:48 <roshi> #agreed - 1204677 - AcceptedFreezeException Beta - It would be good to get this fix in despite freeze.
17:20:51 <roshi> #topic (1207079) Shortcut for ksnapshot don't work with kde5 (plasma5)
17:20:54 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207079
17:20:57 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, plasma-workspace, MODIFIED
17:21:35 <adamw> seems simple enough to take, will affect lives
17:21:40 <adamw> What Could Possibly Go Wrong
17:22:10 <sgallagh> "will affect lives", well that's ominous
17:22:24 <adamw> hehe
17:22:36 <nirik> sure, +1 FE
17:22:37 <roshi> we should start a pool for FEs causing other issues
17:22:46 <roshi> do penny bets or something
17:22:47 <roshi> lol
17:23:34 <roshi> I don't know if print screen shortcuts not working is worth breaking freeze for beta though
17:24:12 <adamw> well, presumably it affects others too.
17:24:24 <adamw> even just print screen is kind of annoying if you're trying to take screenshots for a review, i guess.
17:24:32 <sgallagh> Well, the lack of printscreen makes life hard for reviews
17:24:36 <roshi> well, printscreen is helpful for testing
17:24:39 <sgallagh> See, he gets it
17:24:45 <roshi> I guess +1 then
17:24:51 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm +1 as well.
17:25:45 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1207079 - AcceptedFreezeException Beta - Getting a fix in for this bug would greatly benefit testing of the beta release, so we'll accept a fix during freeze.
17:25:55 <nirik> ack
17:26:10 <adamw> ack
17:26:20 <sgallagh> ack
17:26:22 <roshi> #agreed - 1207079 - AcceptedFreezeException Beta - Getting a fix in for this bug would greatly benefit testing of the beta release, so we'll accept a fix during freeze.
17:26:31 <roshi> #topic (1198437) [btrfs] incorrectly includes subvolid=5 in fstab for some mountpoints
17:26:34 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198437
17:26:37 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, python-blivet, ASSIGNED
17:27:36 <roshi> +1
17:28:14 * adamw reads
17:28:32 <nirik> sure, +1
17:28:40 <adamw> um.
17:28:44 <sgallagh> I'm not thrilled with including FEs for anaconda/blivet that weren't requested by the devs
17:28:50 * adamw not totally sure about changing this post-freeze, would like anaconda opinion at least.
17:28:59 <sgallagh> But then, no one will necessarily fix them either.
17:29:34 <roshi> that was my thought
17:29:39 <adamw> i'm inclined to -1 on this, just don't see the justification for a freeze break atm
17:30:00 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm erring on the side of -1 unless someone makes a REALLY compelling argument otherwise.
17:30:09 <sgallagh> (And that argument has to come from Anaconda)
17:30:14 <nirik> well, it's unclear, does it prevent boot?
17:30:50 <nirik> I guess no or that would be mentioned?
17:30:57 <roshi> probably
17:31:21 <nirik> so I am -1 as well without more info
17:32:02 <adamw> cmurf explicitly says the devices actually seem to mount fine
17:32:10 <adamw> so it's technically incorrect but afaics he doesn't say it breaks anything.
17:32:13 <nirik> then it seems cosmetic
17:32:29 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1198437 - RejectedFreezeException Beta - This bug doesn't warrant FE status with the information provided. If more information is found regarding something breaking, please repropose.
17:32:33 <adamw> ack
17:32:37 <sgallagh> Ack
17:32:40 <roshi> #agreed - 1198437 - RejectedFreezeException Beta - This bug doesn't warrant FE status with the information provided. If more information is found regarding something breaking, please repropose.
17:32:50 <roshi> #topic (1204796) qt5-qtwebkit: QtWebKit logs visited URLs to WebpageIcons.db in private browsing mode [fedora-all]
17:32:54 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204796
17:32:56 <roshi> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, qt5-qtwebkit, ON_QA
17:33:50 <nirik> impact=low
17:33:51 <roshi> +1
17:34:12 <roshi> yeah
17:34:24 <roshi> policy is for auto FE though, so it can still be considered
17:34:34 <nirik> only for high or more I thought?
17:34:43 <sgallagh> I'm abstaining on this one. The impact doesn't seem high enough for breaking freeze
17:34:56 <roshi> aiui, an FE can be for anything - if there's backing for it
17:34:56 <sgallagh> But I dislike voting -1 on security :-P
17:35:02 <roshi> haha
17:35:09 <nirik> actually thats final
17:35:29 <nirik> "The release must contain no known security bugs of 'important' or higher impact according to the Red Hat severity classification scale which cannot be satisfactorily resolved by a package update (e.g. issues during installation)."
17:35:32 <roshi> I see this as having low impact, but being a good fix to get in. Nice and minimal and doesn't touch a 1000 things
17:36:15 <roshi> WCPGW, right?
17:36:20 <roshi> I think little, for this
17:36:27 <roshi> and the fix is tested
17:37:15 <adamw> the criterion is for blocker, not FE.
17:37:22 <adamw> for FE it's pretty much a judgment call
17:37:24 <nirik> yeah true.
17:37:38 <adamw> seems viable people would use the browser from the live image, so i don't mind a +1 if it's tested
17:38:32 <nirik> I suppose... weak +1
17:38:56 <roshi> that's two +1
17:39:06 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'll go with +1 also, I suppose.
17:39:15 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1204796 - AcceptedFreezeException Beta - A tested fix will be accepted to resolve this bug.
17:39:26 <adamw> ack
17:39:40 <adamw> i'll try and do a smoke test live image before filing next tc request
17:40:16 <roshi> sweet
17:40:24 <sgallagh> ack
17:40:27 <roshi> #agreed - 1204796 - AcceptedFreezeException Beta - A tested fix will be accepted to resolve this bug.
17:40:50 <roshi> #topic Open Floor
17:40:52 <adamw> um
17:40:57 <roshi> anybody have anything?
17:40:59 <adamw> we can go back and -1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205534 now, right?
17:41:11 <adamw> since you both tested and failed to reproduce
17:41:17 <adamw> also dlehman wants to propose a new FE
17:41:24 <roshi> yeah, we voted in bug during the meeting
17:41:45 <adamw> be good to sign it off in the meeting since we're here.
17:41:49 <roshi> sgallagh and I did anyway
17:42:16 <roshi> #topic (1205534) gnome-initial-setup crashes upon selecting language
17:42:19 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205534
17:42:22 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-initial-setup, NEW
17:42:24 <roshi> -1
17:42:25 <adamw> ok, so with your re-tests, i'll vote -1 too.
17:42:57 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1205534 - RejectedBlocker Beta - This bug doesn't seem to be reproducible. If steps are found to reproduce this, please re-propose.
17:43:00 <adamw> ack
17:43:59 <adamw> ack
17:44:05 <adamw> oh, already did that.
17:44:05 <sgallagh> ack
17:44:06 <roshi> hehe
17:44:10 <roshi> #agreed - 1205534 - RejectedBlocker Beta - This bug doesn't seem to be reproducible. If steps are found to reproduce this, please re-propose.
17:44:15 <roshi> #topic Open Floor
17:44:22 * roshi sets the fuse...
17:44:30 <sgallagh> Wasn't there something from dlehman?
17:44:33 <adamw> dlehman, yes.
17:44:33 <roshi> now for the new FE?
17:44:43 <adamw> he didn't actually mark a bug yet, but the change he wants considered is https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/60/files
17:45:04 <adamw> it seems kinda borderline for me - on the one hand it's a somewhat significant change, otoh if we're going to take it maybe it makes sense to have it in beta...
17:45:32 <sgallagh> Yeah, if we're going to take this at all, better to be in Beta. +1
17:45:35 * nirik waits for github
17:45:53 <sgallagh> (Also, I'm good with changes that limit the mistakes people can make; at least for FEs)
17:46:22 <roshi> I think just having it in beta for testing is reason enough to +1
17:46:29 <nirik> sure, seems ok
17:46:59 <roshi> proposed #agreed - #topic (1205534) gnome-initial-setup crashes upon selecting language
17:47:02 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205534
17:47:09 <roshi> bah, there was a bad paste
17:47:16 <roshi> #undo
17:47:16 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x3dcce790>
17:47:47 <roshi> proposed #agreed - https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/60/files - AcceptedFreezeException - It would be good to get this into Beta for testing purposes.
17:47:56 <sgallagh> link object?
17:48:13 <sgallagh> oh nm
17:48:16 * adamw just worried this will turn out to have unexpected consequences...
17:48:16 <sgallagh> Ack
17:48:22 <adamw> tentative ack
17:48:23 <nirik> ack
17:48:27 <roshi> everything does adamw - just embrace it :p
17:48:42 <roshi> #agreed - https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/60/files - AcceptedFreezeException - It would be good to get this into Beta for testing purposes.
17:48:54 <roshi> seems like it would be easy enough to revert if need be
17:49:06 <roshi> anything else?
17:49:19 <sgallagh> Red sgallagh needs food badly
17:49:37 <roshi> 3...
17:50:04 <roshi> 2...
17:51:03 <roshi> 1...
17:51:09 <roshi> thanks for coming folks!
17:51:17 <roshi> #endmeeting