16:04:32 <adamw> #startmeeting F24-blocker-review
16:04:32 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jun 13 16:04:32 2016 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:04:32 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:04:32 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
16:04:32 <adamw> #meetingname F24-blocker-review
16:04:32 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
16:04:32 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:04:41 * pschindl is here
16:04:41 <adamw> ahoyhoy, who's around to review some blockers?
16:05:14 * pwhalen is here
16:05:15 * garretraziel is here
16:05:56 <adamw> #chair pwhalen garretraziel
16:05:56 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw garretraziel pwhalen
16:06:25 <adamw> danofsatx: nb: nirik: ping
16:06:38 <adamw> satellit: sgallagh: tflink: ping
16:06:38 <danofsatx> what?
16:06:48 * nirik is sort of kinda here, also in another meeting
16:07:29 <adamw> danofsatx: blocker review, you know you love it
16:10:02 * coremodule is here.
16:10:19 <adamw> ahoyhoy
16:10:58 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:10:59 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:10:59 <adamw> #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.
16:10:59 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:10:59 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:11:00 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:11:02 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:11:04 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:11:06 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Alpha_Release_Criteria
16:11:08 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:11:12 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Final_Release_Criteria
16:11:14 <adamw> who would like to secretarialize?
16:11:42 <pschindl> I can do it
16:12:15 <adamw> ta v. much
16:12:19 <adamw> #info pschindl to secretarialize
16:12:47 <adamw> so i'm gonna do the blockers a bit out of order because i'm verifying the new one
16:13:03 <adamw> #info 3 Proposed Blockers
16:13:04 <adamw> #info 3 Accepted Blockers
16:13:04 <adamw> #info 4 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:13:04 <adamw> #info 13 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:13:13 <adamw> #topic (1344512) [UEFI][DELL Precison M6800] unable to boot Windows 10 - no shim lock protocol
16:13:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344512
16:13:13 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, grub2, ON_QA
16:13:40 <adamw> this was proposed when we initially thought it would mean booting Windows from Fedora grub under UEFI would never work with secure boot disabledf
16:13:47 <adamw> it seems less clear-cut than that now
16:14:04 <adamw> the grub .34 build that went into RC-1.1 does have fixes for all the bugs pjones found in this whole little mess, though
16:14:44 <adamw> so i'd be -1 on this with the current data, i think
16:14:59 * nirik nods. -1 given the info we have now
16:15:07 <pwhalen> same, -1 until we hear back
16:15:16 <coremodule> That grub fix should amend this issue?
16:16:18 <adamw> we think.
16:16:31 <adamw> basically, .34 has the pjones Seal Of That's The Best I Could DO
16:16:38 <pschindl> -1
16:16:41 <garretraziel> -1 for me
16:16:50 <coremodule> It's a hard case to test for, if it's hardware specific... Ha, okay. -1 for me.
16:17:10 <danofsatx> well, since everyone else is -1, I'll go with the flow and add my -1
16:18:06 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1344512 - RejectedBlocker - from current data this seems to have been a sort of transient bug dating back to F22 UEFI boot manager configuration, no solid indication that it violates the criteria
16:18:11 <garretraziel> ack
16:18:18 * adamw brb, call of nature
16:18:53 <nirik> ack
16:19:01 <danofsatx> ack
16:19:04 <coremodule> ack
16:19:32 <pwhalen> ack
16:20:26 <adamw> #agreed 1344512 - RejectedBlocker - from current data this seems to have been a sort of transient bug dating back to F22 UEFI boot manager configuration, no solid indication that it violates the criteria
16:21:02 <adamw> #topic (1344812) Package must be updated for F24 final
16:21:02 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344812
16:21:02 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, spin-kickstarts, ON_QA
16:21:14 <adamw> this is kinda just a rubber stamp, in fact we already assumed it would be approved and put the fix in rc1.1
16:21:28 <pschindl> +1
16:21:35 <adamw> because i can do that and you can't stop me, muahahaha
16:21:52 <nirik> +1
16:21:59 <danofsatx> +0
16:22:14 * danofsatx tries valiantly to stop adamw
16:22:17 <pwhalen> heh, +1
16:22:17 <garretraziel> +1
16:23:10 <coremodule> +1
16:23:17 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1344812 - AcceptedBlocker - this is an obvious violation of "A spin-kickstarts package which contains the exact kickstart files used to build the release must be present in the release repository. The included kickstarts must define the correct set of release repositories."
16:23:28 <pschindl> ack
16:23:29 <pwhalen> ack
16:23:30 <danofsatx> ack
16:23:34 <garretraziel> ack
16:23:35 <coremodule> ack
16:24:45 <adamw> aaaaand now the sad one
16:24:49 <adamw> #agreed 1344812 - AcceptedBlocker - this is an obvious violation of "A spin-kickstarts package which contains the exact kickstart files used to build the release must be present in the release repository. The included kickstarts must define the correct set of release repositories."
16:24:55 <adamw> #topic (1344863) AttributeError: 'Iso9660FS' object has no attribute 'partitions'
16:24:55 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344863
16:24:55 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:25:01 <adamw> so i just finished reproducing this, and yup, it's busted.
16:25:37 <adamw> garretraziel: um. how did you report a pass for  QA:Testcase_USB_stick_DVD_dd without hitting this?
16:26:10 * adamw just dd'ed the workstation live, tried to install, and hit this
16:27:09 <garretraziel> hmm, lemme check, I think that I might have used netinst instead...
16:27:20 <adamw> davidshea says it should affect all spins
16:27:27 <adamw> oh well, doesn't matter that much - if it affects lives that's enough to block i'd say
16:27:38 <adamw> +1, this prevents install from at least Workstation live written to USB with dd
16:27:45 <pwhalen> indeed, +1
16:27:47 <danofsatx> +1
16:28:17 <coremodule> +1\
16:28:20 <garretraziel> oh well, I remember now, I have done complete installation with netinst and then only tried veryfing and booting into anaconda with DVD by dd
16:28:30 <adamw> bad garretraziel
16:28:32 <adamw> slappity slap
16:28:33 <adamw> :P
16:28:41 <garretraziel> doesn't affect Server though
16:28:52 * adamw tests  with everything netinst
16:30:05 <garretraziel> but yeah, +1
16:30:30 <adamw> happens with everything netinst too.
16:30:54 <nirik> +1 blocker. rc2 ahoy
16:31:01 <pschindl> +1
16:31:34 <garretraziel> adamw: I'm didn't encountered it with Server netinst though
16:31:41 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1344863 - AcceptedBlocker - this appears to completely prevent install from USB media, which is a clear violation of "The installer must be able to complete an installation using any supported locally connected storage interface" (Alpha criterion) in the case of a USB install medium, which we consider more than sufficient to constitute a violation
16:31:55 <nirik> ack
16:31:57 <adamw> garretraziel: are you sure? i can't think of any reason you shouldn't...be good if you could re-test
16:32:01 <garretraziel> ack
16:32:16 <pschindl> ack
16:32:24 <coremodule> ack
16:32:28 <danofsatx> ack
16:32:31 <pwhalen> ack
16:32:39 <adamw> #agreed 1344863 - AcceptedBlocker - this appears to completely prevent install from USB media, which is a clear violation of "The installer must be able to complete an installation using any supported locally connected storage interface" (Alpha criterion) in the case of a USB install medium, which we consider more than sufficient to constitute a violation
16:32:47 <garretraziel> adamw: pretty sure. PC should be still installed in our cubicle
16:33:11 <adamw> OK
16:33:22 <adamw> #info nothing of interest about the accepted blockers, all look to be properly addressed
16:33:35 <adamw> let's do proposed FEs, we have four to blow through
16:33:41 <adamw> #info moving onto proposed FEs
16:33:45 <adamw> #topic (1342654) Got an error from DNF about the 'logging' function
16:33:45 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342654
16:33:45 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, anaconda, NEW
16:34:16 <adamw> huh, not sure why we didn't review this before...
16:35:00 <garretraziel> looks like clear +1 FE to me
16:35:17 <adamw> meh, i dunno at this point, it's a slightly bigger change than it sounds. but not sure it matters a lot
16:35:44 <adamw> if the only thing it fixes is a deprecation warning i think i'm -1 at this point (though if we'd reviewed it last week i would've been +1)
16:37:00 <nirik> hum...
16:37:20 <coremodule> I agree that a change to fix an error message at this point might not be wise, however if the fix could be implemented quickly (today or tomorrow), I would have no problem testing it to the fullest extent...
16:37:22 <nirik> yeah, kinda on the fence here...
16:38:16 <nirik> huh, it was already accepted?
16:38:30 <nirik> in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341947 ? or is that a different bug?
16:38:54 <garretraziel> full diff is here https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/658/files
16:39:24 <coremodule> nirik, Huh, you're right. It does look like the same bug...
16:40:56 <adamw> huh, yeah. why are there two?
16:41:06 <adamw> oh
16:41:08 <adamw> one is lorax one is anaconda?
16:41:21 <nirik> ah, right, that could be
16:42:48 <adamw> aaanyhoo
16:42:52 <adamw> let's decide something already
16:43:14 <nirik> I'm a weak +1 I guess
16:44:29 <coremodule> I'm a +1, I'll do whatever testing I can, assuming we get a fix soon.
16:45:06 <pwhalen> +1
16:45:13 <adamw> you're all crazy
16:45:15 <coremodule> *I'll do whatever testing I can, *regardless* of if we get a fix soon, but here's hoping. :P
16:45:18 <adamw> proposed #agreed you're all crazy
16:45:20 <adamw> okay FIIIINE
16:45:38 <danofsatx> ack
16:45:43 <coremodule> lol
16:45:47 <garretraziel> ack
16:46:00 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1342654 - AcceptedFreezeException - not having deprecation warnings in the installer is good, I guess?
16:48:07 <nirik> ack
16:48:07 <coremodule> ack
16:48:10 <nirik> I guess
16:48:10 <pschindl> ack
16:48:36 <danofsatx> ackish
16:48:44 <pwhalen> ack
16:48:53 <adamw> #agreed 1342654 - AcceptedFreezeException - not having deprecation warnings in the installer is good, I guess?
16:49:04 <adamw> #topic (1341333) Do not build for arm because of broken deps
16:49:04 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341333
16:49:04 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, golang-github-mistifyio-go-zfs, ON_QA
16:49:23 <adamw> more dep fixage, sure, +1
16:49:46 <garretraziel> +1
16:49:49 <pschindl> +1
16:49:57 <nirik> +1
16:50:51 <coremodule> +1
16:51:22 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1341333 - AcceptedFreezeException - this change fixes dependency issues in the base repo and doesn't look to have any possible impact on release quality
16:51:55 <danofsatx> +1, ack, all the things
16:51:59 <coremodule> ack-ohol
16:52:04 <pschindl> ack
16:52:10 <adamw> #agreed 1341333 - AcceptedFreezeException - this change fixes dependency issues in the base repo and doesn't look to have any possible impact on release quality
16:52:14 <adamw> #topic (1293167) [abrt] kf5-kinit: qt_message_fatal(): kdeinit5 killed by SIGABRT
16:52:14 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293167
16:52:15 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, kf5-kinit, NEW
16:53:16 <danofsatx> this is still happening? wtf?
16:53:39 * danofsatx thought that got fixed long, long ago (in a galaxy far, far away)
16:53:42 <adamw> no?
16:54:00 <adamw> i guess i'd be +1 FE if there was a safe-looking fix, though there doesn't seem to be one
16:54:10 <adamw> and it's a bit late for something that only really affects installed systems
16:54:26 <danofsatx> it's been present since Plasma5 was a thing.
16:54:50 <danofsatx> It's bloody annoying, too. but I could have sworn it got fixed.
16:55:37 <adamw> well, no, clearly it didn't.
16:55:43 <adamw> maybe you're thinking of something else.
16:55:57 <adamw> anyhow, i guess i'd say punt on this on the basis we have no idea what any fix might look like at this point.
16:56:34 <nirik> it looks like it's qxl only?
16:56:42 <nirik> so some weird video driver thing
16:57:12 <adamw> yes
16:57:17 <adamw> that's why we made it not a blocker
16:57:25 <nirik> right, fair enough.
16:58:43 <nirik> I think it's a bit late for this, so -1 FE
17:00:42 <pschindl> -1 FE from me too\
17:00:59 <danofsatx> -1
17:01:04 <pwhalen> -1 fe
17:01:50 <garretraziel> I don't have clear opinion on this
17:02:20 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1293167 - RejectedFreezeException - it's now quite late in the F24 process and there is still no indication of how any fix for this might look, and the issue mostly affects installed systems in any case, so there's no clear case to accept it
17:03:03 <nirik> ack
17:03:05 <pschindl> ack
17:03:52 <pwhalen> ack
17:04:21 <coremodule> ack
17:04:48 <adamw> #agreed 1293167 - RejectedFreezeException - it's now quite late in the F24 process and there is still no indication of how any fix for this might look, and the issue mostly affects installed systems in any case, so there's no clear case to accept it
17:04:55 <adamw> #topic (1344472) no focus for panel elements if using crtl-alt-tab
17:04:56 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344472
17:04:56 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, mate-panel, ON_QA
17:04:59 <danofsatx> ack
17:05:16 <adamw> sure, looks like a valid +1
17:05:45 <nirik> sure, +1
17:05:47 <garretraziel> +1
17:05:52 <pschindl> +1
17:06:07 <pwhalen> +1
17:06:50 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1344472 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is clearly a significant issue that cannot be fixed with a post-release update, it is in a non-blocking desktop so cannot endanger the release
17:07:06 <pschindl> ack
17:07:21 <danofsatx> +1, ack
17:07:38 <pwhalen> ack
17:07:43 <coremodule> ack
17:07:50 <adamw> #agreed 1344472 - AcceptedFreezeException - this is clearly a significant issue that cannot be fixed with a post-release update, it is in a non-blocking desktop so cannot endanger the release
17:07:59 <adamw> ok, that's all the stuff on the agenda
17:08:02 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:08:04 <adamw> any other business?
17:08:12 <adamw> any other bugs that need discussing?
17:10:50 <adamw> anyone have any strong opinions about Euro 2016?
17:11:00 <zdzichu> yawn
17:11:05 <zdzichu> stron enough?
17:11:07 <zdzichu> g
17:11:18 <garretraziel> go team red? I guess?
17:11:58 <coremodule> Those Europeans sure enjoy their soccer!
17:12:06 <garretraziel> it's called football!
17:12:07 <nirik> that star player makes too much money.
17:12:24 <garretraziel> because you play with your foot, you know
17:12:24 <coremodule> Sorry, football!
17:12:36 <adamw> garretraziel: that's the statistically proven choice, indeed
17:12:41 <coremodule> lol yes, instead of your socc.
17:13:08 <adamw> except when you're playing with your head, or your chest, or any other part of your body except your arms
17:13:34 <nirik> there's a similar game in the US... which should be called 'hand egg' but isn't for some reason. ;)
17:14:08 <adamw> nirik: as i've mentioned on memo-list, i would pay good money to see someone attempt to advance that argument in a pub traditionally occupied by fans of rugby football
17:14:28 <adamw> i'd even have an ambulance on standby. i'm not *that* mean.
17:14:36 <nirik> ha
17:15:16 <adamw> i mean, if you want to name it *logically*, soccer should be 'anything-but-your-arms-quasi-spherical-ball'
17:15:39 <adamw> i'm not sure this is a naming trend that will catch on
17:15:49 <adamw> alrighty! glad to see my trolling skills are intacty
17:15:50 <nirik> likely not
17:16:10 <adamw> thanks everyone, i guess we'll be looking out for an RC2 soon
17:17:12 <adamw> #endmeeting