16:00:38 <adamw> #startmeeting F30-blocker-review
16:00:38 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr  1 16:00:38 2019 UTC.
16:00:38 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:38 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:38 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:38 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f30-blocker-review'
16:00:38 <adamw> #meetingname F30-blocker-review
16:00:38 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:00:38 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f30-blocker-review'
16:00:45 <adamw> morning folks, who's around for F30 blocker review fun?
16:00:54 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:00:55 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:00:59 * coremodule is here, secretary-duty ready!
16:01:02 <lruzicka> .hello2
16:01:03 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
16:02:20 * satellit afk will read later
16:05:03 <adamw> nirik: kalev: halfline: ignatenkobrain: pwhalen: ahoys?
16:05:50 * nirik is fesco meeting
16:06:00 <kalev> I'm around, but have to go in a few minutes, sorry
16:06:37 <adamw> alright, well
16:06:39 <adamw> let's see how it goes
16:06:48 <sgallagh> I'm overcommitted today, but I'll try to follow along
16:06:51 <adamw> #chair frantisekz lruzicka
16:06:51 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw frantisekz lruzicka
16:06:57 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:06:57 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:06:57 <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.
16:06:58 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:06:58 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:06:59 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:07:01 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:07:03 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:07:05 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:07:09 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:07:11 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Final_Release_Criteria
16:09:44 <adamw> we have:
16:09:44 <adamw> #info 3 Proposed Blockers
16:09:44 <adamw> #info 5 Accepted Blockers
16:09:52 <adamw> for Final
16:09:58 <adamw> #info we will start with proposed Final blockers
16:10:05 <adamw> #topic (1691832) NFSISO test failed on f30 (20190320)
16:10:05 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691832
16:10:05 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
16:10:52 <cmurf> that's new
16:10:59 <adamw> so this affects installing from an ISO image accessed via NFS (which is a supported option)
16:11:06 <adamw> installing from a *repo* accessed via NFS works
16:12:06 <lruzicka> nothing to solve here, +1 blocker
16:12:12 <coremodule> Seems like an "out there" example, but seems clear given the cited criteria
16:12:24 <coremodule> +1
16:12:26 * sumantro is here
16:12:29 <frantisekz> +1
16:12:32 <cmurf> +1 blocker
16:12:36 <sumantro> +1
16:13:40 <cmurf> offtopic: anyone know where `select all` went in F30 gnome terminal? it's MIA, I can't find it
16:13:56 <adamw> i see it on the edit menu.
16:14:05 <cmurf> i don't have an edit menu
16:14:10 <cmurf> gone
16:14:26 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1691832 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to use all supported local and remote package and installer sources."
16:14:28 <adamw> dunno, then.
16:14:37 <frantisekz> ack
16:14:39 <sumantro> ack
16:14:41 <coremodule> ack
16:14:43 <cmurf> ack
16:14:44 <lruzicka> ack
16:15:28 <adamw> #agreed 1691832 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "The installer must be able to use all supported local and remote package and installer sources."
16:15:53 <adamw> #topic (1683197) gdm Fails to load with "nomodeset"
16:15:53 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683197
16:15:53 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, ASSIGNED
16:16:09 <adamw> so this is the bug we punted from beta by deciding we don't want the criterion there any more
16:16:20 <adamw> given that we agreed at QA meeting just now to move the criterion to final, it seems we should accept this...
16:16:26 <cmurf> +1 blocker
16:16:33 <adamw> it *is* GNOME-specific, but hey, that's our main desktop.
16:16:43 <coremodule> +1
16:16:44 <lruzicka> yeah, +1 blocker
16:16:49 <frantisekz> +1
16:19:34 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1683197 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "The boot menu for all supported installer and live images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use the generic driver" (which is moving to Final)
16:19:43 <frantisekz> ack
16:19:48 <coremodule> ack
16:20:00 <cmurf> ack
16:21:03 <lruzicka> ack
16:21:11 <adamw> #agreed 1683197 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a violation of "The boot menu for all supported installer and live images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use the generic driver" (which is moving to Final)
16:21:19 <adamw> #topic (1691909) GDM fallback from Wayland to X11 no longer works because it takes too long to start gnome-shell (affects 'basic graphics mode' / nomodeset, maybe other cases)
16:21:20 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691909
16:21:20 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gdm, NEW
16:21:38 <adamw> this is another basic graphics issue I found in follow-on testing from the previous one
16:21:48 <adamw> it affects GNOME on BIOS, probably most installs.
16:21:58 <frantisekz> is this causing systems to fail to reach gdm?
16:22:07 <adamw> it also affects some non-'basic mode' cases, most likely - it's possible any time the fallback from wayland to x11 is needed
16:22:10 <adamw> it would do that, yes.
16:22:38 <frantisekz> okay, I think wayland should work in basic video on uefi
16:22:47 <frantisekz> but we're still blocking even on BIOS, so +1
16:22:54 <lruzicka> I did not know how to reproduce it ... BIOS basic graphics mode did not work, but I was not sure if it was the previous bug or this one
16:23:24 <lruzicka> but +1 blocker
16:23:43 <cmurf> +1 blocker
16:23:48 <sumantro> +1 blocker
16:23:58 <adamw> lruzicka: to get around the previous bug, you build GDM with the patch that triggers it removed
16:24:04 <adamw> i did that, expecting it to work...and ran into this instead
16:25:15 <lruzicka> adamw, ok, I will let franta show me
16:25:29 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1691909 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of the 'basic' graphics requirement for Workstation on BIOS, it likely also affects other cases and is a showstopping bug whenever it happens
16:25:33 <lruzicka> franta = frantisekz
16:25:37 <frantisekz> ack
16:25:41 <lruzicka> ack
16:26:09 <adamw> lruzicka: i think https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33677821 is the scratch build i did, it will get garbage-collected at some point though.
16:26:58 <coremodule> ack
16:27:04 <adamw> #agreed 1691909 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is accepted as a violation of the 'basic' graphics requirement for Workstation on BIOS, it likely also affects other cases and is a showstopping bug whenever it happens
16:27:20 <adamw> #topic Accepted blockers
16:27:29 <adamw> that's all the proposed blockers, let's have a quick check through the accepted blockers
16:27:50 <adamw> #info 1690429 is clearly being worked on by workstation folks, fix should show up soon
16:28:15 <adamw> #info 1688462 is with DNF and modularity folks, it's definitely on their radar, we will check in if a fix doesn't show up soon though
16:28:27 <adamw> #info 1693397 is straightforward and fix is pending
16:28:38 <adamw> #info 1666920 has been stale for some time...
16:28:43 <adamw> #action adamw to poke anaconda team re 1666920
16:28:48 <adamw> and systemd i guess.
16:28:53 <adamw> #undo
16:28:53 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by adamw at 16:28:43 : adamw to poke anaconda team re 1666920
16:29:00 <adamw> #action adamw to poke systemd team re 1666920
16:29:16 <adamw> #info 1674045 is well known but again stale, adam will poke systemd
16:29:23 <adamw> #action adamw to poke systemd team re 1674045 too
16:29:28 <cmurf> .bug 1692617 looks similar to 1674045
16:29:29 <zodbot> cmurf: HTTP Error 400: Bad Request - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1692617 looks similar to 1674045
16:29:34 <adamw> anyone have other thoughts / notes on those accepted blockers?
16:30:18 <adamw> cmurf: yes, it looks like the same bug. just close it as a dupe, i guess.
16:31:48 <cmurf> 1674045 is set to Rawhide does that matter?
16:32:03 <adamw> it's not particularly important
16:32:14 <cmurf> is it still happening?
16:33:17 <adamw> yes.
16:33:25 <adamw> otherwise it would be closed. :P
16:33:32 <cmurf> i hadn't heard anything about dnf system-upgrade failures happening in the upgrade boot environment during testing, and then saw bug 1692617 which is reported just on friday
16:33:49 <cmurf> ok so it's a transient problem?
16:34:05 <adamw> it happens over half the time in openqa tests.
16:34:15 <cmurf> wow
16:34:20 <adamw> people report it quite frequently
16:34:23 <adamw> the bug is full of comments
16:35:13 <cmurf> interesting - doesn't seem to affect gnome-software pk offline upgrades
16:35:47 <adamw> well, because they don't involve a major systemd update as part of the transaction, presumably.
16:36:09 <adamw> #topic Open floor
16:36:13 <adamw> sounds like we're about done?
16:36:16 <adamw> anyone got anything else?
16:37:22 <coremodule> nothing here!
16:37:35 <lruzicka> no please
16:38:17 <adamw> alrighty, thanks for coming everyone!
16:38:20 <adamw> see you next time
16:38:21 <adamw> #endmeeting