16:00:37 <adamw> #startmeeting F35-blocker-review
16:00:37 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Oct 18 16:00:37 2021 UTC.
16:00:37 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:37 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
16:00:37 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:37 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f35-blocker-review'
16:00:40 <adamw> #meetingname F35-blocker-review
16:00:40 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f35-blocker-review'
16:00:44 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:01:01 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello2 jbwillia
16:01:02 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: Sorry, but user 'Southern_Gentlem' does not exist
16:01:08 <Southern_Gentlem> .hello jbwillia
16:01:09 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: jbwillia 'Ben Williams' <vaioof@gmail.com>
16:01:14 <coremodule> .hello2
16:01:15 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
16:01:21 * coremodule willing to act as secretary.
16:01:40 <frantisekz> .hello2
16:01:43 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
16:02:20 <cmurf[m]> .hello chrismurphy
16:02:21 <zodbot> cmurf[m]: chrismurphy 'Chris Murphy' <bugzilla@colorremedies.com>
16:02:32 <adamw> morning morning, how's everyone doing?
16:02:42 <pwhalen> .hello2
16:02:43 <zodbot> pwhalen: pwhalen 'Paul Whalen' <pwhalen@redhat.com>
16:03:10 <pwhalen> Great, how about you, adamw?
16:04:16 <adamw> frazzled...
16:04:42 * pwhalen admits that's more accurate for him too
16:05:14 <adamw> heh
16:06:25 <cmurf[m]> my god man, it's only Monday
16:07:12 <cmurf[m]> but i guess i can get on the frazzled bandwagon
16:09:14 <adamw> cmurf: kde
16:09:20 <adamw> alriiighty
16:09:21 <RaphGro> mondays are for trash mostly
16:09:29 <adamw> #chair cmurf pwhalen
16:09:29 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw cmurf pwhalen
16:09:34 <adamw> boilerplate alert
16:09:39 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:09:41 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:09:44 <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.
16:09:47 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:09:51 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:09:54 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:09:58 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:10:00 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:10:03 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:10:06 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:10:11 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Final_Release_Criteria
16:10:37 <adamw> #info for Final, we have:
16:10:41 <adamw> #info 3 Proposed Blockers
16:10:44 <adamw> #info 7 Accepted Blockers
16:10:48 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:10:52 <adamw> #info 6 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:11:05 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:11:11 <adamw> let's get started with:
16:11:11 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final blockers
16:11:17 <adamw> #topic (2012758) clevis - thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()
16:11:19 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012758
16:11:22 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/543
16:11:24 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, clevis-pin-tpm2, ASSIGNED
16:11:31 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,0,-0) (+bcotton, +geraldosimiao, +mattdm, +lruzicka)
16:11:44 <adamw> so i left this on the meeting list even though it has +4 as discussion in the bug report indicated this may not be a critical problem
16:12:43 <adamw> note comment #5 and #6
16:14:10 <adamw> i'm asking pbrobinson about it in the IoT room now
16:14:26 <pwhalen> I've not hit this (nor has openqa) but also not using the same commands
16:14:45 <frantisekz> okay, would be nice to have his feedback too, maybe we can move this to the end of the meeting?
16:14:52 <Southern_Gentlem> can we skip for now till we can get more info
16:15:39 <adamw> roger
16:15:50 <adamw> #info we'll table this for a bit to see if we can get more info from pbrobinson before voting
16:16:05 <adamw> #topic (2010058) F34/F35 5.14 kernels will not boot on AWS EC2 t2.small / c4.large / m4.large instances
16:16:09 <Southern_Gentlem> yeah table is the word
16:16:15 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010058
16:16:19 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/549
16:16:22 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, dracut, NEW
16:16:26 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+4,0,-0) (+adamwill, +bcotton, +mattdm, +lruzicka)
16:16:40 <adamw> so we have the votes for FE here already, blocker is a trickier call
16:16:56 <adamw> we did quite carefully limit the blocker requirements here, and i think the bug doesn't meet them
16:18:01 <adamw> the requirement is "Release-blocking cloud disk images must be published to Amazon EC2 as AMIs, and these must boot successfully and meet other relevant release criteria on at least one KVM-based x86 instance type, at least one KVM-based aarch64 instance type, and at least one Xen-based x86 instance type."
16:18:13 <adamw> it's not actually clear from the bug if there's an arch for which there's no working instance type.
16:18:16 <mattdm> I think FE but respin images with the fix when it lands?
16:19:07 <mattdm> (I think we also may need to expand that requirement in the future.)
16:20:03 <pwhalen> Seems like a blocker to me, but based on the existing criteria +1FE
16:20:14 <adamw> well, i was assuming that as FE we'd pull the fix in anyway
16:20:34 <adamw> the bug mentions there is a tested fix, it just needs backporting
16:20:42 <Southern_Gentlem> doesnt appear that anyone has tried the workaround for f35 just f34  so +1FE
16:22:12 <mattdm> I'm hoping that we can do that but if for some reason it doesn't happen by the blessed RC, FE means we ship anyway, right? So in that case we should respin ASAP.
16:22:38 <adamw> yes. okay.
16:22:49 <frantisekz> +1 FE then
16:23:19 <Southern_Gentlem> **fingers crossed **
16:23:59 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2010058 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - on current understanding this does not violate the criterion, as we do have at least one working instance type per arch (which is all the criterion requires). But it's clearly a big problem worth fixing for release (and we intend to do so)
16:24:20 <cmurf[m]> ack
16:24:28 <pwhalen> ack
16:24:29 <frantisekz> ack
16:24:35 <Southern_Gentlem> mattdm, unless by thursday for the go/nogo there is a consensus otherwise
16:24:37 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:24:57 <adamw> #agreed 2010058 - RejectedBlocker (Final) AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - on current understanding this does not violate the criterion, as we do have at least one working instance type per arch (which is all the criterion requires). But it's clearly a big problem worth fixing for release (and we intend to do so)
16:25:06 <adamw> #topic (2011928) Fedora 35 aarch64 cloud image based openstack VM hangs
16:25:09 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011928
16:25:12 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/525
16:25:17 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, kernel, NEW
16:25:19 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+1,0,-0) (+bcotton)
16:26:15 <Southern_Gentlem> so the aarch64 img work but just not in an openstack vm?
16:26:36 <adamw> it seems, uh...murky
16:26:52 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011928#c36 throws the cat among the pigeons a bit
16:27:16 <adamw> there definitely seem to be reproducible problems running on a specific openstack provider called vexxhost...but then dusty says coreos folks saw issues on vexxhost a month ago.
16:27:24 <adamw> i don't know if we've tried running on any other openstack instance.
16:27:56 <cmurf[m]> i'm still working on this, as are others
16:28:09 <adamw> yeah, it definitely seems to be pretty active
16:28:16 <adamw> even though we're very late, i kinda still want to punt on this
16:28:28 <adamw> in the hopes someone does figure out what the heck is going on soon. it does seem pretty active.
16:28:58 <pwhalen> I've not reproduced anywhere else, it would be great if someone could test on another openstack instance
16:29:07 <cmurf[m]> i'm not sure we can block on something we don't understand let alone without an upstream fix
16:29:28 <cmurf[m]> coreos folks have said they are hitting something similar on aarch64 where they are using xfs
16:29:35 <adamw> yeah, as i said above
16:29:57 <cmurf[m]> speculation is that it's either an alignment problem that arm is more sensitive with or possibly toolchain specific... but yeah
16:30:11 <cmurf[m]> once i get a kernel crash dump to developers, it should be less murky
16:30:55 <cmurf[m]> i could use some help with kdump stuff if anyone has experience with it
16:31:13 <cmurf[m]> sysrq+c just hangs the VM, i'm not getting a kernel core dump file in /var/crash
16:31:32 <cmurf[m]> either on #fedora-qa or #kernel:fedoraproject.org
16:35:00 <adamw> alright
16:35:07 <adamw> does everyone else feel punt-y here?
16:35:39 <cmurf[m]> yeah for now
16:35:52 <coremodule> +1 punt
16:36:40 <frantisekz> +1 punt
16:36:57 <adamw> oh, should we grant it FE status at least so we can get a fix in without needing votes if one happens to show up quickly?
16:37:00 <adamw> i'm definitely +1 FE at least
16:37:06 <cmurf[m]> +1FE
16:37:11 <pwhalen> +1FE
16:37:32 <frantisekz> +1 FE
16:38:03 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2011928 - punt (delay decision) on blocker, AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - though it's very late, we're still actively researching this and can't be sure yet if it needs to block the release. many folks are working on it actively and we hope for developments soon. We agree it's at least serious enough to grant a freeze exception in any case.
16:38:04 <cmurf[m]> another argument is that it's a conditional blocker, as it seems to only happen in openstack (which is itself curious to everyone)
16:38:18 <cmurf[m]> ack
16:38:45 <adamw> cmurf: basically i think if this turned out to be something odd about *vexxhost specifically* i'd likely be -1. if it turns out to affect any openstack instance, or at least some likely common openstack version/config, i'd be +1
16:39:21 <cmurf[m]> it is affecting openstack
16:39:44 <cmurf[m]> i'm not sure if it's all openstack providers though, hence your question about vexxhost
16:40:11 <coremodule> ack
16:40:35 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 fe
16:40:38 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
16:42:20 <adamw> #agreed 2011928 - punt (delay decision) on blocker, AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - though it's very late, we're still actively researching this and can't be sure yet if it needs to block the release. many folks are working on it actively and we hope for developments soon. We agree it's at least serious enough to grant a freeze exception in any case.
16:42:59 <adamw> okay
16:43:08 <adamw> didn't hear from pbrobinson yet, so let's do:
16:43:15 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final freeze exceptions
16:43:20 <adamw> #topic (2014421) Include the latest build that fixes issues on GNOME 41
16:43:25 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2014421
16:43:27 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/550
16:43:31 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-shell-extension-dash-to-dock, ON_QA
16:43:34 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+1,0,-1) (+lruzicka, -kparal)
16:43:41 <frantisekz> so, I've proposed this, and I am -1 FE :D
16:44:10 <Southern_Gentlem> ok frantisekz why
16:44:15 <frantisekz> forgot that we're doing stable push before the release, so having it as a FE woudln't make sense
16:44:31 <adamw> yeah, if it's not on the media it's probably not necessary
16:44:44 <frantisekz> the reason was to make the 0day experience painless on upgrades, that's assured by the stable push right before the release
16:45:03 <frantisekz> so, sorry for adding another useless item here
16:45:30 <Southern_Gentlem> ok (adds to my list for sooner respins)
16:46:35 <frantisekz> Southern_Gentlem it shoudln't be necessary if I am not mistaken, if it isn't part of any compose?
16:47:15 <Southern_Gentlem> if it is a zero day fix therefore its an update will be pulled in
16:48:20 <adamw> i'm also -1 as there's no advantage here really.
16:48:33 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 FE
16:50:44 <coremodule> -1 FE
16:51:03 <Southern_Gentlem> 1,0,-6
16:53:32 <adamw> sorry, juggling KDE bugs, heh
16:54:17 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2014421 - RejectedFreezeException (Final) - as this extension is not on the media, there's no real need for a freeze exception here, a 0-day update achieves the same goal.
16:54:24 <frantisekz> ack
16:54:26 <coremodule> ack
16:54:58 <cmurf[m]> ack
17:00:09 <adamw> #agreed 2014421 - RejectedFreezeException (Final) - as this extension is not on the media, there's no real need for a freeze exception here, a 0-day update achieves the same goal.
17:00:26 <adamw> sorry again, i just figured out why we can't delete disabled flatpak remotes...heh
17:00:34 <adamw> #topic (2012863) Gnome Software does not refresh after installation from RPM.
17:00:40 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012863
17:00:44 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/530
17:00:47 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, gnome-software, NEW
17:00:52 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalFreezeException (+3,1,-0) (+catanzaro, +bcotton, +geraldosimiao, kparal)
17:01:02 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:01:08 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 FE
17:01:40 <geraldosimiao> .hello geraldosimiao
17:01:41 <zodbot> geraldosimiao: geraldosimiao 'Geraldo S. Simião Kutz' <geraldo.simiao.kutz@gmail.com>
17:01:56 <geraldosimiao> sorry I'm late
17:03:34 <adamw> ok, so i pushed back mildly on this as it's not exactly a one-liner patch
17:03:56 <adamw> so mcatanzaro's further justification is that there is a non-aesthetic consequence here - after installing an app you can't remove it until you restart gnome-software.
17:04:13 <adamw> which, yeah, that's a bug it'd be nice to fix. i just worry about the nightmare scenario that we inadvertently break something worse.
17:04:42 <frantisekz> we can wait to see / test the proposed patch then, fair point
17:05:26 <Southern_Gentlem> if there is not fe how would we test
17:05:30 <Southern_Gentlem> no fe
17:05:49 <adamw> an update can be submitted
17:05:55 <adamw> it just doesn't go stable without an FE
17:10:39 <Southern_Gentlem> so punt so we can see if the medicine is not worse that the issue
17:10:49 <Southern_Gentlem> than
17:11:14 <adamw> sorry, i'm splitting attention with a KDE blocker meeting now :D
17:11:16 <adamw> busy morning
17:11:28 * cmurf[m] distracted as well
17:11:32 <adamw> we could accept it as an FE but only pull the fix in if someone swears to me that it's safe, i guess
17:12:05 <Southern_Gentlem> which would make your life easier at this point
17:16:27 <adamw> ok, let's go with that
17:16:41 <cmurf[m]> haha
17:17:38 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2012863 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - we accept this as there is a practical bug here it'd be nice to fix (can't remove a package after installing it unless you restart Software), but we want to be very sure the fix is safe before we actually pull it in
17:17:59 <coremodule> ack
17:18:50 <frantisekz> ack
17:19:32 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:21:38 <adamw> #agreed 2012863 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - we accept this as there is a practical bug here it'd be nice to fix (can't remove a package after installing it unless you restart Software), but we want to be very sure the fix is safe before we actually pull it in
17:21:51 <adamw> #topic (1990584) F35FailsToInstall: rust-matrixmultiply+thread-tree-devel, rust-matrixmultiply+threading-devel
17:21:55 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990584
17:21:58 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/554
17:22:01 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, rust-matrixmultiply, MODIFIED, depends on other bugs
17:22:56 <frantisekz> +1 FE, there is no harm in fixing FTI bug
17:23:15 <frantisekz> also fti bug would remain forever in the release ('fedora') repository
17:24:24 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 fe
17:24:29 <pwhalen> +1 FE
17:25:27 <adamw> yeah, sure
17:26:18 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1990584 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - no harm fixing an FTI issue so the frozen tree is good and upgrades work until the release day
17:27:14 <cmurf[m]> ack
17:27:33 <frantisekz> ack
17:27:40 <pwhalen> ack
17:30:36 <adamw> #agreed 1990584 - AcceptedFreezeException (Final) - no harm fixing an FTI issue so the frozen tree is good and upgrades work until the release day
17:32:35 <adamw> ok, let's go to:
17:32:39 <adamw> #topic Accepted Final blockers
17:35:34 <adamw> so...the 10,000 foot overview here is: we have fixes in flight for everything except the KDE bugs
17:35:48 <adamw> let's go into detail on those
17:35:55 <adamw> #topic (2011291) Discover shows a misleading state of Flatpak repos, can't delete disabled repos
17:35:58 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011291
17:36:02 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/512
17:36:05 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, plasma-discover, NEW
17:36:41 <adamw> #info we have fixes for these as of this morning. I have confirmed the first "misleading state" fix, the "can't delete disabled" fix showed up during the meeting and I haven't tested it yet, but it should be good
17:36:56 <adamw> #topic (2011333) Toggling repo in Discover doesn't redraw the checkbox, confusing users
17:37:00 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011333
17:37:03 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/517
17:37:07 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, plasma-discover, NEW
17:37:28 <adamw> #info we also now have a fix for this, I have confirmed that it works. I'll submit updates later today
17:37:41 <adamw> #topic (2011322) Discover doesn't seem to find any RPM packages, neither locally installed nor in RPM repos (but just under en_US locale)
17:37:44 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011322
17:37:46 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/515
17:37:50 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, plasma-discover, NEW
17:38:45 <adamw> #info this one is outstanding, but at least we worked out the trigger (bug only happens in US locale, for some reason). KDE devs are actively helping us look into this one now, we hope to try and get somewhere with it today.
17:40:52 <Southern_Gentlem> yeah
17:44:35 <adamw> anyone have other thoughts/notes on these?
17:45:06 <geraldosimiao> nope
17:47:18 <adamw> okay. i've got a busy day of KDE package builds ahead of me...
17:47:39 <geraldosimiao> good luck :)
17:49:16 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final blockers
17:49:23 <adamw> let's circle back to:
17:49:27 <adamw> #topic (2012758) clevis - thread 'main' panicked at 'called `Option::unwrap()
17:49:30 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012758
17:49:33 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/543
17:49:36 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, clevis-pin-tpm2, ASSIGNED
17:49:40 <adamw> #info Ticket vote: FinalBlocker (+4,0,-0) (+bcotton, +geraldosimiao, +mattdm, +lruzicka)
17:50:02 <adamw> i didn't hear back from pbrobinson, i guess he's busy. so possibly the safe thing to do here is accept it, but with a proviso that we can revote if it turns out not to be a big deal?
17:51:00 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:51:06 <pwhalen> +1, sounds reasonable
17:51:06 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 fb with provision
17:51:10 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:51:22 <coremodule> ack, wfm
17:51:28 <geraldosimiao> it seems if one remove the clevis-pin-tpm2 all work fine
17:51:39 <geraldosimiao> so a fix for now
17:52:09 <Southern_Gentlem> then my question at that point did the hardware have tpm2
17:53:20 <adamw> proposed #agreed 2012758 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - we accept this as a blocker on the basis that it violates "When configured on hardware with a Trusted Platform Module (TPM), it must be possible for the Clevis utility to automatically decrypt any encrypted partitions on boot without any user intervention" in enough cases. If further information suggests that's not the case, we may change the decision
17:53:36 <coremodule> ack
17:53:38 <pwhalen> ack
17:53:42 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:53:44 <geraldosimiao> ack
17:54:11 <adamw> #agreed 2012758 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - we accept this as a blocker on the basis that it violates "When configured on hardware with a Trusted Platform Module (TPM), it must be possible for the Clevis utility to automatically decrypt any encrypted partitions on boot without any user intervention" in enough cases. If further information suggests that's not the case, we may change the decision
17:54:14 <adamw> #topic Open floor
17:54:17 <adamw> any other business, folks?
17:55:07 <Southern_Gentlem> hopes for this week this stuff gets resolved so cmurf[m] can do his USS shipping joke
18:04:59 <geraldosimiao> ok, so now adamw can end the meeting?
18:05:37 <adamw> i guess we can!
18:05:43 <adamw> thanks for coming everyone
18:05:55 <adamw> sorry for splitting attention a bit
18:05:57 <adamw> #endmeeting