16:00:25 <adamw> #startmeeting F27-blocker-review
16:00:25 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Oct 30 16:00:25 2017 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:25 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27-blocker-review'
16:00:25 <adamw> #meetingname F27-blocker-review
16:00:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27-blocker-review'
16:00:25 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:00:35 <adamw> morning folks, who's around for some blocker reviewin' fun?
16:00:41 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:00:42 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:00:46 * lbrabec is here
16:00:55 * satellit listening
16:00:55 * coremodule is here!
16:00:58 <dominicpg> .hello2
16:00:59 <zodbot> dominicpg: dominicpg 'None' <dominicpg@gmail.com>
16:01:25 <sgallagh> .hello2
16:01:25 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:03:08 * sumantro is here
16:03:13 * pwhalen is here
16:03:17 <sumantro> .hello2
16:03:18 <zodbot> sumantro: sumantro 'Sumantro Mukherjee' <sumantro@outlook.com>
16:03:21 * Kohane is here
16:05:52 <adamw> ahoy folks
16:06:06 <adamw> #chair sgallagh coremodule
16:06:06 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw coremodule sgallagh
16:06:24 <adamw> impending boilerplate!
16:06:24 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:06:24 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:06:24 <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.
16:06:25 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:06:26 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:06:28 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:06:29 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:06:31 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:06:33 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:06:35 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:06:37 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Final_Release_Criteria
16:08:00 <adamw> who wants to secretarialize?
16:08:12 <coremodule> adamw, Youuuuu got it!
16:09:15 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:11:40 <adamw> for F27 final, we have:
16:11:41 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Blockers
16:11:41 <adamw> #info 6 Accepted Blockers
16:11:41 <adamw> #info 0 Accepted 0-day Blockers
16:11:43 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Previous Release Blockers
16:11:43 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:11:45 <adamw> #info 8 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:13:11 <adamw> for server beta we have (skipping 0s):
16:13:12 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Blockers
16:13:12 <adamw> #info 4 Accepted Blockers
16:13:15 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:13:27 <adamw> #info we'll start with the proposed Final blockers
16:13:35 <Kohane> Okay.
16:13:45 * pschindl_ is here. Sorry I forgot that time has changed here and not in America
16:14:23 <Kohane> Yeah, happened to me too. I connected one hour earlier, haha.
16:16:20 <adamw> #topic (1504059) Include Firefox 57 at compose
16:16:20 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504059
16:16:20 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, distribution, NEW
16:16:36 <adamw> Kohane: pschindl_: whoops, sorry, should've started mentioning that in announcements
16:18:35 <Kohane> I've been using Firefox 57 and works smoothly so far. I wouldn't call it  "unstable".
16:18:37 <adamw> so, we were still waiting for fesco here
16:18:42 <sgallagh> So I think this is settled now
16:18:54 <sgallagh> FESCo ruled on Friday that this is a blocker
16:19:05 <sgallagh> Sorry, I forgot to update the ticket post-meeting. It was a hectic Friday
16:19:22 * sgallagh goes to do that
16:19:23 <Kohane> Yeah, no problem sgallagh
16:19:54 * adamw was just reading those minutes
16:20:14 <Kohane> So this means that until Firefox doesn't release the stable 57 version Fedora can't release F27 ?  Did I understand it correctly?
16:20:26 <sgallagh> Kohane: no
16:20:34 <sgallagh> We will ship with a pre-release of Firefox 57
16:20:45 <Kohane> Ah, okay, good.
16:20:55 <sgallagh> Because we don't want our users to have to deal with a backwards-incompatible change immediately after installation
16:21:17 <Kohane> Yeah, I had those in Ubuntu and is horrible.
16:21:43 <sgallagh> Well, it's inevitable for F26 to hit this as well, unfortunately.
16:21:53 <sgallagh> But at least it's not within the first week or two
16:22:44 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1504059 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - FESCo declared this to be a blocker at their 2017-10-27 meeting, sgallagh will update the fesco ticket to say so shortly.
16:22:54 <sumantrom> +1
16:23:07 <coremodule> ack
16:23:10 <frantisekz> ack
16:23:17 <sumantrom> ack
16:23:19 <sgallagh> Ack
16:23:19 <Kohane> ack
16:23:20 <dominicpg> ack
16:23:33 <lbrabec> ack
16:23:51 <pwhalen> ack
16:24:43 <pschindl_> ack
16:25:54 <siddharthvipul1> ack
16:26:34 <sgallagh> This may be the most-acked resolution in blocker meeting history
16:26:55 <dominicpg> with no confusion ;-)
16:26:59 <Kohane> LOL
16:27:08 <sumantrom> lol :D
16:27:14 <sgallagh> I think adamw is getting distracted by dustymabe
16:27:37 <adamw> i am, sorry
16:27:40 <adamw> i need to get a clone in here :)
16:27:45 <sgallagh> #agreed 1504059 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - FESCo declared this to be a blocker at their 2017-10-27 meeting, sgallagh will update the fesco ticket to say so shortly.
16:27:45 <adamw> #agreed 1504059 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - FESCo declared this to be a blocker at their 2017-10-27 meeting, sgallagh will update the fesco ticket to say so shortly.
16:27:50 <sgallagh> d'oh
16:27:52 * adamw hits sgallagh
16:27:55 <adamw> #undo
16:27:56 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by adamw at 16:27:45 : 1504059 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - FESCo declared this to be a blocker at their 2017-10-27 meeting, sgallagh will update the fesco ticket to say so shortly.
16:28:00 <sgallagh> adamw: If you want me to take over for a bit, I can attempt to do so
16:28:06 <adamw> nah, it's fine
16:28:09 <sgallagh> ok
16:28:12 <adamw> #topic (1506802) some steam games broken in F27
16:28:12 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506802
16:28:12 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, glibc, ASSIGNED
16:28:45 <dustymabe> sgallagh: :)
16:29:29 <sgallagh> I'm honestly -1/-1 here. It's *very* late in the cycle to be accepting changes to glibc
16:29:30 <coremodule> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:29:33 <frantisekz> I'd be for +1FE here if glibc team is okay with that backport
16:29:44 <sgallagh> Let me see if I can get hold of codonnel
16:29:53 <sumantrom> -1 Blocker , +1 FE
16:30:12 <Kohane> -1 Blocker, +1 FE
16:30:25 <lbrabec> -1/+1
16:30:38 <pschindl_> -1/+1
16:31:17 <dominicpg> +1 FE
16:31:26 <sgallagh> If we already had a patched build to consider today, I'd be more inclined to +1 FE, but as it is we don't
16:31:27 <pwhalen> -1/+1 (based on the okay from the glibc team)
16:31:56 <sgallagh> "codonell	sgallagh, I would not expect the change to regress other behaviour."
16:32:02 <sgallagh> I guess that's good enough for me.
16:32:28 <adamw> okey dokay
16:33:04 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1506802 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this does not violate any criteria, but we felt that ensuring Steam games run correctly from live boots and immediately after install is important enough to grant it an FE.
16:33:21 <dominicpg> ack
16:33:21 <pwhalen> ack
16:33:22 <sumantrom> ack
16:33:23 <frantisekz> ack
16:33:23 <lbrabec> ack
16:33:24 <pschindl_> ack
16:33:25 <sgallagh> patch
16:33:43 <sgallagh> Can we add "as long as the fix arrives by tomorrow" as a condition?
16:34:05 <sgallagh> Any later and I'm not confident in our ability to test it
16:34:30 <adamw> sure
16:34:41 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1506802 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this does not violate any criteria, but we felt that ensuring Steam games run correctly from live boots and immediately after install is important enough to grant it an FE, so long as the fix arrives promptly
16:34:47 <Kohane> sgallagh:  What can be possibly go wrong? ;-)
16:35:01 <sgallagh> Hmm, I'm not liking the rest of this conversation I'm having.
16:35:19 <sgallagh> "Our SOP is to rebase on the stable branch to pull this fix in" which implies we wouldn't be getting *just* this fix.
16:36:11 <adamw> yeah, i don't like that either
16:36:25 <adamw> i've been worse at pushing people on that rule lately, but for glibc...
16:37:29 <adamw> still, we can take the agreement, it doesn't *require* us to pull the fix
16:37:35 <adamw> i'll make sure to only request it if it looks sane
16:37:35 <sgallagh> Right
16:37:39 <adamw> #agreed 1506802 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this does not violate any criteria, but we felt that ensuring Steam games run correctly from live boots and immediately after install is important enough to grant it an FE, so long as the fix arrives promptly
16:37:42 <sgallagh> worksforme
16:38:10 <adamw> #info moving onto the proposed Final FE
16:38:13 <adamw> #topic (1507296) sugar-browse-201 fails to start in f27 sugar 0.110.0
16:38:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507296
16:38:14 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, sugar-browse, ON_QA
16:38:26 <adamw> +1 FE, getting non-blocking desktops to work is obviously worth an FE
16:38:47 <sumantrom> +1 FE
16:39:12 <satellit> +1 FE
16:39:13 <pwhalen> +1
16:39:16 <sgallagh> +1 FE
16:39:21 <lbrabec> +1 FE
16:39:28 <dominicpg> +FE
16:39:29 <frantisekz> +1 FE
16:39:37 <Kohane> +1 FE
16:39:38 <dominicpg> +1 FE
16:39:53 <pschindl_> +1 FE
16:40:06 <siddharthvipul1> +1 FE
16:40:11 <Kohane> sgallagh: What is  "worksforme"?
16:41:18 <sgallagh> Kohane: "works for me" is an expression meaning "I can accept that as a justification"
16:42:32 <adamw> roiger!
16:42:36 <adamw> sorry, got distracted by something else.
16:43:04 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1507296 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this bug prevents a non-release-blocking desktop (Sugar) from working, fixing that for the release is obviously desirable
16:43:05 <Kohane> adamw, adamw.... what are you doing?
16:43:29 <pwhalen> ack
16:43:35 <sgallagh> ack
16:43:37 <lbrabec> ack
16:43:37 <dominicpg> ack
16:43:41 <sumantrom> ack
16:43:41 <satellit> ack
16:43:45 <Kohane> sgallagh: Oh, thanks. I know the expression but I couldn't recognise it when written all together. My bad. I'm paying attention to too many things.
16:43:48 <Kohane> ack
16:44:19 <pschindl_> ack
16:44:22 <frantisekz> ack
16:44:29 <adamw> #agreed 1507296 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - this bug prevents a non-release-blocking desktop (Sugar) from working, fixing that for the release is obviously desirable
16:44:36 <adamw> Kohane: arguing about bugs. just...other bugs. :P
16:45:03 <adamw> #info moving on to proposed Server Beta blockers
16:45:13 <adamw> #topic (1474910) Host and Platform
16:45:13 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474910
16:45:13 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, Changes Tracking, MODIFIED
16:45:38 <adamw> so this is a Change tracking bug, not really sure how i feel about having it on the blocker list, but it wouldn't hurt a lot.
16:46:18 <pwhalen> are we tracking modular server testing results somewhere?
16:47:13 <sumantrom> pwhalen, I guess not until now or do we have a wiki ?
16:47:35 <adamw> we haven't had a really testable compose yet
16:48:04 <dominicpg> afaik, we are using [modular] tag prefix at bz title
16:48:16 <adamw> so no
16:48:17 <dominicpg> and no dedicated wiki to track
16:48:46 <pwhalen> ok, thanks
16:48:51 <adamw> once we have a compose...it's tricky
16:49:08 <adamw> relval doesn't know anything about this whole 'split release' process, since we just made it up
16:49:12 <sgallagh> We have a testable compose, but there's a font issue so the automated tests fail
16:49:20 <pwhalen> I was able to install a nightly last week on aarch64, afaik it was just graphical that caused the install to fail
16:49:24 <adamw> so i'd have to rewrite quite a few things to cover it, or just create all the pages more or less manually like it was 2014 or something
16:49:29 <sgallagh> I'm trying to have that fixed by the nightly tonight
16:49:59 <sgallagh> adamw: Not worth rewriting relval for something that should hopefully not happen again, ever
16:50:09 <adamw> well, i mean, we're gonna have to do *something*
16:50:15 <adamw> that may be less of a pain in the ass than doing all the work manually
16:50:18 <adamw> i haven't figured it out yet though
16:50:28 <pwhalen> sorry to derail the meeting, just wanted to record results somewhere
16:50:49 <adamw> yeah, no, it's a good point; i'll try and figure something out
16:51:08 <sumantrom> adamw I can volunteer to create wiki pages!
16:51:13 <adamw> ugh, the more i think about it, the more work it'd be, everything is awful
16:51:39 <adamw> sumantrom: there are a few...non-obvious problems i can think of
16:51:53 <adamw> like, if we have validation events for Server, what's the "current" validation event?
16:51:58 <adamw> is it the Final one or the Server Beta one?
16:52:09 <adamw> do we now have two 'current' events? how do we deal with that? what do we do with the redirect pages?
16:52:20 <Kohane> I'm lost...
16:52:28 <adamw> sorry :) it's a bit OT
16:52:31 <adamw> we'll figure it out elsewhere
16:52:41 <adamw> where are we on this bug?
16:52:48 <sumantrom> adamw sure after the meeting :D
16:54:21 <sgallagh> adamw: I could make it easy and just mark this one as Complete
16:54:31 <sgallagh> Because we do have a compose that includes a host module and a platform module.
16:54:35 <sgallagh> It installs and can run things
16:54:56 <adamw> well, i don't think i can have a sensible opinion on whether the Change is complete.
16:55:01 * satellit afk
16:55:22 <adamw> i'm just not sure what the usefulness of having the Change bug block the blocker tracker is; we usually have *functional* bugs as blocker bugs
16:55:31 <adamw> 'the software doesn't do X' kinda stuff
16:55:39 <sumantrom> sgallagh, is the compose 20171026.n.3 ?
16:55:46 <adamw> i suppose it doesn't hurt a lot, i'm just not sure what the usefulness of it is
16:56:03 <sgallagh> sumantrom: There's one from last night that should be almost done. I'll point to it in a bit.
16:56:17 <sgallagh> adamw: I think mattdm just got overzealous with the blocker proposals
16:56:29 <sgallagh> I'll vote -1 blocker if it helps
16:56:47 <Kohane> I'll second that. I don't think this is a blocker.
16:56:48 <frantisekz> ja koukám, za co utratit benefity body... :D
16:56:55 <frantisekz> sorry, wrong chat
16:57:05 <sgallagh> uh...
16:57:17 <Kohane> What language is that one frantisekz ? Czech?
16:57:46 <sgallagh> off-topic...
16:57:55 <Kohane> Yes, sorry.
16:58:41 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1474910 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we don't really see that there's any utility in having a Change tracking bug as a release blocker, the release blocker process is about concrete functional bugs; any functional bug caused by the Change being incomplete should be evaluated as a blocker on its own merits
16:59:16 <sgallagh> adamw: I also just marked the bug complete.
16:59:21 <pwhalen> ack
16:59:22 <sumantrom> ack
16:59:23 <sgallagh> ack
16:59:24 <pschindl_> ack
16:59:25 <lbrabec> ack
16:59:28 <dominicpg> ack
16:59:29 <sumantrom> sgallagh, thanks :)
16:59:35 <adamw> #agreed 1474910 - RejectedBlocker (Final) - we don't really see that there's any utility in having a Change tracking bug as a release blocker, the release blocker process is about concrete functional bugs; any functional bug caused by the Change being incomplete should be evaluated as a blocker on its own merits
16:59:43 <adamw> #topic (1506847) rolekit missing from Modular Server ISO
16:59:44 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506847
16:59:44 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, fedora-modular-release, NEW
16:59:50 <adamw> welp, that seems fairly obviously a blocker by description
16:59:51 <adamw> +1
17:00:01 <sgallagh> +1
17:00:08 <frantisekz> +1
17:00:16 <sgallagh> It'll be fixed in tonight's compose
17:00:17 <sumantrom> +1
17:00:23 <pwhalen> +1
17:00:33 <dominicpg> +1
17:00:36 <Kohane> +1
17:00:36 <lbrabec> +1
17:01:25 <adamw> gah, i got that last agreed wrong
17:01:26 <adamw> oh well
17:01:37 <adamw> coremodule: of course that last #agreed was for Server Beta, not Final
17:01:49 <coremodule> Roger roger.
17:02:01 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1506847 - AcceptedBlocker (Server Beta) - rolekit missing clearly violates all the criteria related to featured server roles
17:02:02 * sgallagh hits coremodule with a lightsaber
17:02:15 <Kohane> Poor coremodule ....
17:02:24 <sumantrom> ack
17:02:31 <sgallagh> ack
17:02:38 <lbrabec> ack
17:02:42 <Kohane> ack
17:02:54 <adamw> #agreed 1506847 - AcceptedBlocker (Server Beta) - rolekit missing clearly violates all the criteria related to featured server roles
17:03:02 <adamw> #topic (1506894) The default repo for modular server netinst is invalid
17:03:02 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506894
17:03:02 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, fedora-modular-release, MODIFIED
17:03:02 <coremodule> Kohane, Ahhh!
17:03:23 <sgallagh> So this one is "special"
17:03:24 <Kohane> That's a blocker.
17:03:50 <sgallagh> It's definitely a blocker, but it's sort of already fixed for modular because I made an end-run around the normal Anaconda process.
17:03:52 <sumantrom> +1 blocker
17:04:14 <Kohane> But still a blocker.
17:04:22 <Kohane> +1 Blocker
17:04:22 <pwhalen> +1
17:04:25 <dominicpg> so, until then +1 blocker
17:04:25 <lbrabec> +1
17:04:27 <sgallagh> But the anaconda folks want to merge the patch back into the version that will be shipped with F27 Final so that the traditional and modular releases will be the same.
17:04:36 <sgallagh> So they need essentially a blocker or FE to do that.
17:05:31 <sgallagh> So it's in a strange place.
17:05:47 <mkolman> it's the same as with bug tracking
17:05:59 <sgallagh> hmm?
17:05:59 <mkolman> we just have a single channel for this
17:06:51 <mkolman> same as with not having two places for tracking bug testing
17:06:57 * sgallagh nods
17:07:09 <mkolman> there is just a single ditgit branch for F27 & single Bodhi workflow
17:07:23 <mkolman> *distgit
17:08:05 <adamw> yeah, effectively it doesn't make much difference whether we take it as a blocker/FE for server or final since they're both ultimately coming frm the same place
17:08:08 <adamw> so I guess +1 FE
17:08:22 <sumantrom> +1 FE
17:08:27 * sgallagh apologizes for causing the disconnect here; I was trying to get us to an RC over the weekend, which I didn't quite manage anyway.
17:08:36 <sgallagh> +1 FE
17:08:53 <sgallagh> Actually, amend that....
17:09:04 <sgallagh> +1 F27 Final FE, +1 Server Beta Blocker
17:09:16 <sgallagh> (for posterity, even though it's fixed already for the latter)
17:09:21 <Kohane> +1 FE
17:09:51 <sgallagh> (On the off-chance that we miss it or something when we re-merge here, I want it clearly to be a blocker for Modular)
17:11:52 <Kohane> I agree with that sgallagh
17:12:39 <adamw> okay, sure, whaetver sgallagh says...
17:13:02 <sgallagh> In that case, you can send your tithes to...
17:14:09 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1506894 - AcceptedBlocker (Server Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - sgallagh says it's necessary to update anaconda to have this work consistently between the regular and Server modular releases; this is accepted as a Final freeze exception to indicate that we want the change in Final to allow the two to be consistent. accepted as a Server Beta blocker as this must be addressed somehow for the Server Beta release.
17:14:22 <sgallagh> ack
17:14:26 <sumantrom> ack
17:14:30 <lbrabec> ack
17:14:42 <pschindl_> ack
17:14:46 <frantisekz> ack
17:15:15 <Kohane> ack
17:15:19 <sumantrom> ack
17:15:27 <dominicpg> ack
17:16:12 <adamw> #agreed 1506894 - AcceptedBlocker (Server Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - sgallagh says it's necessary to update anaconda to have this work consistently between the regular and Server modular releases; this is accepted as a Final freeze exception to indicate that we want the change in Final to allow the two to be consistent. accepted as a Server Beta blocker as this must be addressed somehow for the Server Beta release.
17:16:25 <adamw> #info that's all proposed blockers
17:16:33 <adamw> and FEs
17:16:41 <adamw> we should probably look at accepted blockers, this week
17:16:46 <adamw> #info moving onto accepted Final blockers
17:17:22 <adamw> #topic (1503496) FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'grub2-mkconfig'
17:17:22 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503496
17:17:22 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED
17:17:37 <adamw> the proposed fix for this was merged and a new anaconda built, we do need confirmation that it works
17:17:49 <adamw> one tester reported errors trying to use my updates.img , but hasn't followed up since
17:18:01 <adamw> it'd be good if someone with a Mac could try an install with the updates.img , or with the updated anaconda...
17:18:17 <adamw> #info proposed fix for this is available as an anconda update, but we need testing
17:18:24 <mkolman> BTW, this Bodhi update should cover all accepted Anaconda blockers & FEs: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/anaconda-27.20.4-3.fc27
17:19:20 <Kohane> adamw:  Unfortunately I have no Macs at hand, not even an old one. Otherwise, I would be happy to test it.
17:20:00 <adamw> mkolman: thanks a lot, i will run it through openqa tests today
17:20:33 <mkolman> adamw: OK :)
17:20:49 <adamw> so, i guess that's all on this one
17:20:55 <adamw> #topic (1506052) Package build of official release notes required for Fedora 27 Final
17:20:55 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506052
17:20:55 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, fedora-release-notes, NEW
17:21:00 <adamw> waiting for the docs team on this one, i guess
17:22:19 <adamw> oh, well, bex asked a question in-bug, i answered it.
17:22:45 <adamw> #info this is waiting on the docs team to take or suggest some specific course of action
17:23:10 <sumantrom> ack
17:23:32 <Kohane> ack
17:23:33 <dominicpg> ack
17:23:35 <frantisekz> ack
17:23:58 <pwhalen_> ack
17:24:14 <adamw> we don't really need to do acks / nacks at this part of the meeting
17:24:19 <adamw> sorry, we haven't done it for a while, so a reminder
17:24:27 <dominicpg> ok
17:24:41 <adamw> when discussing accepted bugs we don't vote then ack/nack/patch , it's more a case of just talking the bug through and establishing where it's at and who has the ball next
17:24:51 <adamw> the person running the meeting will do #infos as appropriate for the notes
17:24:56 <adamw> of course if you spot a mistake in one, say so :)
17:25:15 <mkolman> ack
17:25:18 <adamw> #topic (1164492) Please drop libvirt 'default' network dependency for F27 GA, disrupts livecd networking
17:25:18 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164492
17:25:18 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, gnome-boxes, ON_QA
17:25:32 <adamw> so there's an issue here i've been trying to get people to engage with but no luck so far
17:25:39 <adamw> the actual blocker and change here is straightforward
17:26:08 <adamw> but the update that's proposed to address the blocker *also* includes a change to the default video adapter for Boxes VMs, which was intended as a partial fix for #1491320
17:26:24 <adamw> i am not clear on whether we still *want* to make that change in boxes, given that we're trying to fix the qxl bug on the kernel side
17:26:35 <adamw> unfortunately, i don't see any of the relevant parties here...
17:28:40 <adamw> #info this is somewhat stuck on the question of whether we still want the default Boxes video adapter changed to virtio as well as this change, but relevant folks to decide this were not in the meeting
17:28:53 <adamw> #action adamw to keep bugging people until we can make a decision about that
17:29:06 <adamw> #topic (1486002) grub2-mkconfig does not work if xen.gz is installed.
17:29:06 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486002
17:29:06 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, grub2, NEW
17:29:18 <adamw> so pjones submitted an update intended to fix this, but it seems like it only fixed it halfway
17:29:42 <adamw> that's been the state for four days, we're waiting on pjones' followup
17:30:24 <Kohane> Mmmh...  adamw can you ping him/her ?
17:30:29 <adamw> #info the maintainer attempted a fix here, but the submitter reports that it's incomplete; we are waiting on a further attempt from the maintainer
17:30:30 <coremodule> Anymore testing we can do on this one?
17:30:32 <adamw> Kohane: already am,
17:30:41 <adamw> coremodule: i don't think so, until there's a new attempt to fix it...
17:30:43 <Kohane> Oh, nice
17:31:41 <coremodule> Okay, figured, but thought I'd ask.
17:34:04 <adamw> we're talking about it now. so, moving on...
17:34:45 <Kohane> ok
17:35:31 <adamw> #topic (1491320) heavy screen flicker with latest kernels in qxl+spice VM
17:35:31 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491320
17:35:31 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, kernel, ON_QA
17:36:31 <adamw> well, we have some discussion about this mouse pointer issue
17:36:41 <adamw> but people seem fairly clear that the kernel update resolves the flicker issue...
17:37:53 <adamw> #info feedback seems pretty clear that the update fixes the bug, just needs to be pushed stable
17:38:34 <adamw> #topic (1506050) spin-kickstarts package build needed for Fedora 27 final
17:38:34 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506050
17:38:34 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, spin-kickstarts, NEW
17:38:45 <adamw> again, we're waiting on this to get done...i may be able to do it if i can find the time
17:39:42 <adamw> #info we're still waiting on a package build by someone with the necessary privileges, herhe
17:39:53 <Kohane> Doh...  waiting again....
17:40:03 <adamw> we have one previous release blocker
17:40:04 <adamw> #topic (1494061) gnome-software doesn't show F25->F27 upgrade even though it should
17:40:04 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494061
17:40:05 <adamw> #info Accepted Previous Release Blocker, gnome-software, VERIFIED
17:40:51 <adamw> fix here is verified, we're just waiting on the updates to be pushed
17:41:04 <adamw> #info fix is in and verified, just waiting on the update push
17:41:32 <adamw> #info Finally, moving on to accepted Server Beta blockers
17:41:35 <adamw> #topic (1492237) tracker bug for Update Fedora Release Criteria for Modular Server
17:41:35 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492237
17:41:36 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, Changes Tracking, NEW
17:41:39 <adamw> sgallagh: what's goin' on?
17:41:50 <sgallagh> Sorry, got distracted
17:41:52 * sgallagh reads back
17:42:44 <sgallagh> adamw: As of right now, we're operating under the assumption that we should be able to meet the requirements of F26 server.
17:43:16 <sgallagh> We *probably* want to add some modularity-specific ones, but given how things are already going, I'm personally inclined to stick with "do not regress" as a target
17:43:25 <adamw> heh
17:43:53 <adamw> yes, my belief was always that we should add some requirements that installing / updating / removing modules should work
17:44:05 <adamw> that doesn't seem too hard to do, should just be a case of cloning or modifying the package criteira...
17:45:18 <sumantrom> me agrees with adamw
17:47:08 <adamw> #info still not clear exactly what modifications we're planning here, we should clarify that and make them
17:47:31 <sgallagh> Yes, sorry
17:47:53 <adamw> #topic (1503321) FreeIPA server upgraded from F26 to F27 fails to start with "ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'ipapython.secrets'"
17:47:53 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503321
17:47:54 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, freeipa, NEW
17:48:41 <adamw> so we basically know what's going on here, but i'm not clear how hard anyone's working on fixing it...
17:49:02 <adamw> i hope the freeipa folks didn't read "it's caused by a failed ipa-server-upgrade" as "no need to worry about this"
17:50:14 <Kohane> adamw:  I wouldn't be surprised if they read it that way....
17:50:58 <sgallagh> ...
17:51:24 <sgallagh> I'll see if I can get some answers from them
17:51:36 <adamw> i'm talking now...
17:52:49 <sgallagh> ok
17:52:57 <adamw> #info we need to figure out the exact cause of the failed upgrade here, and ensure freeipa team is on the same page and working on any necessary fixes
17:53:03 <adamw> #action adamw and sgallagh to sync with freeipa team
17:53:28 <adamw> #topic (1504602) Image build fails because of dracut warning "/dev/root does not exist"
17:53:28 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504602
17:53:28 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, lorax, NEW
17:53:30 <adamw> presumably this is fixed?
17:54:50 <sgallagh> adamw: This appears to be a semi-random issue with the build machines
17:55:14 <adamw> oh. so, not fixed?
17:55:18 <sgallagh> Some of the ARM builders will randomly hang and eventually time out, which eventually dominoes into this
17:55:32 <sgallagh> We basically just fire another one off and it usually works
17:55:43 <Kohane> It doesn't look like it's fixed...
17:55:57 <sgallagh> It may actually be a hardware issue, not a software one, but no one has been able to track it down yet
17:56:10 <adamw> that sounds like it doesn't need to be a blocker...
17:56:13 <sgallagh> That said, I'm not sure it's a blocker
17:56:14 <sgallagh> right
17:57:21 <sgallagh> I haven't actually seen it happen in the last week either
17:57:32 <sgallagh> So it's possible the recent reboots of the ARM builders "fixed" it
17:59:09 <Kohane> sgallagh:  I'm lost. How can the reboots fix this issue?
17:59:18 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1504602 - RejectedBlocker (Server Beta) - this is now understood to be a 'semi-random' issue which release engineering has strategies for working around, so it doesn't really prevent us composing entirely
18:00:31 <adamw> oh, we're doing a vote / ack / nack process here as we're considering changing the status of the bug
18:00:34 <adamw> sorry, shoulda mentioned that
18:00:39 <sumantrom> ack
18:00:47 <Kohane> ack
18:02:02 <pwhalen> ack
18:02:11 <adamw> #agreed 1504602 - RejectedBlocker (Server Beta) - this is now understood to be a 'semi-random' issue which release engineering has strategies for working around, so it doesn't really prevent us composing entirely
18:02:24 <adamw> ok, last one
18:02:24 <adamw> #topic (1504745) Modular server autopart gives invalid partitioning
18:02:24 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504745
18:02:24 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, python-blivet, NEW
18:03:33 <sgallagh> This is fixed. I didn't realize there was a BZ open on it.
18:03:39 <sgallagh> I'll get that closed
18:04:46 <Kohane> Oh.
18:04:58 <Kohane> Then we can ignore/skip it?
18:05:24 <adamw> well, it means we're about done :P
18:05:30 <adamw> #info this is already fixed, sgallagh will close
18:05:38 <adamw> #info that's all proposals and accepted blockers
18:05:41 <adamw> #topic Open floor
18:05:49 <adamw> sgallagh: i believe you mentioned you have some others to bring up that aren't formally proposed?
18:06:06 <sgallagh> adamw: We covered them
18:06:19 <sgallagh> adamw: Do you want me to mark this fixed or ON_QA?
18:06:43 <sgallagh> I mean, the images are generating, so probably fixed makes sense.
18:07:03 <adamw> sgallagh: fixed is fine by me.
18:07:18 <sgallagh> done
18:08:34 <adamw> alright, so, any other business? any other bugs to bring up? other worries about the releases?
18:08:51 <Kohane> Not from my side.
18:09:05 <sumantrom> not from my side too :D
18:10:54 <sgallagh> Oh, wait. I forgot one.
18:11:13 <sgallagh> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506840
18:11:14 * adamw wonders what kind of shape we are
18:11:16 <adamw> anyone else have a side?
18:11:21 <sgallagh> .bug 1506840
18:11:21 <zodbot> sgallagh: Bug 1506840 – Missing fonts for anaconda-gui in Modular Server media - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1506840
18:11:25 <adamw> ooh, anyone got one of the corner pieces?!
18:11:49 <sgallagh> Sorry, thought I'd filed that one in the tool; must have missed it
18:11:51 <adamw> sgallagh: what about this one? does it need an FE to push something?
18:12:09 <sgallagh> adamw: Proposing it as a blocker to Modular Server Beta,
18:12:28 <sgallagh> At least in part because it's blocking your automated tests
18:12:45 * sumantrom gets it too
18:14:19 <adamw> eh, i dunno if i'd count it as a blocker
18:14:47 <adamw> maybe a final blocker on the basis of the non-english language criteria
18:14:55 <adamw> hard to do an install when all the characters are empty boxes
18:15:02 <sgallagh> yes
18:15:34 <sgallagh> OK, if we don't want to call it a blocker, that will also reduce my blood pressure right now, because the person who can fix this is on PTO through at least tomorrow :)
18:15:39 <Kohane> I think is a blocker, but I'm really tired now. I'll follow any decision you guys take.
18:16:20 <adamw> sgallagh: what actually needs changing to fix it?
18:16:35 <sgallagh> We need to get the right fonts into the "fonts" module for anaconda to use.
18:16:56 <sgallagh> On the last pass, we pulled in all the ones that didn't require additional build-deps, hoping that would cover the anaconda use-case.
18:16:59 <adamw> is that a change that bodhi blocks?
18:17:04 <sgallagh> Lorax templates
18:17:11 <sgallagh> So no
18:17:15 <adamw> okay.
18:17:19 <adamw> just wanted to be clear on that.
18:17:35 <adamw> so, i'm gonna say +1 final blocker. i'd be +1 beta FE if there was anything to except, but it appears there isn't.
18:17:36 * sgallagh nods
18:17:47 <sumantrom> +1 final blocker
18:17:54 <sgallagh> I can work with that. +1 Final Blocker
18:18:04 <Kohane> +1
18:20:35 <adamw> alrighty
18:21:20 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1506840 - AcceptedBlocker (Server Final) - this constitutes a violation of "The installer must correctly display all sufficiently complete translations available for use", as it cannot display translations it does not have the fonts for
18:21:41 <sgallagh> ack
18:21:53 <Kohane> ack
18:21:56 <sumantrom> ack
18:22:19 <frantisekz> ack
18:22:41 <adamw> #agreed 1506840 - AcceptedBlocker (Server Final) - this constitutes a violation of "The installer must correctly display all sufficiently complete translations available for use", as it cannot display translations it does not have the fonts for
18:22:43 <adamw> alrighty
18:22:44 <adamw> anything else?
18:24:18 <adamw> sounds like no!
18:24:21 <adamw> thanks for coming, everyone
18:24:23 <adamw> #endmeeting