16:00:10 <jlaska> #startmeeting F-14-Beta blocker review
16:00:10 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Aug 27 16:00:10 2010 UTC.  The chair is jlaska. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:10 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:15 <jlaska> #topic Gathering ...
16:00:17 <adamw> yo
16:00:24 <jlaska> #meetingname f-14-beta-blocker-review
16:00:24 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f-14-beta-blocker-review'
16:00:31 <jlaska> hey adamw
16:01:07 <jlaska> I'll just  wait another minute for others
16:02:16 <jlaska> alright, I guess it's adamw, me and zodbot
16:02:23 <adamw> thank god for zodbot
16:02:28 <jlaska> indeed
16:02:31 <adamw> otherwise i might fear for my maidenhead
16:02:41 * jlaska is speachless
16:02:44 <adamw> :P
16:02:45 <jlaska> speechless too
16:02:58 <jlaska> okay ... I think we all know the rules here
16:03:07 <jlaska> But for anyone new to the meeting ...
16:03:14 * nirik is lurking around, but somewhat busy... ping me if I can help
16:03:17 <jlaska> I'll be walking through the bugs listed at ...
16:03:19 <jlaska> nirik: will do
16:03:22 <jlaska> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=611991&hide_resolved=1
16:03:52 <jlaska> let's get started
16:03:54 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618504
16:03:55 <buggbot> Bug 618504: medium, low, ---, enrico.scholz, NEW, Cannot submit abrt bugs
16:04:25 * jlaska reviewing criteria pages
16:04:48 <adamw> yeah, that's on beta, i think
16:04:54 <jlaska> I thought so too ... searching
16:05:12 <jlaska> it's a no brainer, if we can't get bug feedback for the beta ... that's not good
16:05:30 <adamw> ...or i may be on crack
16:05:44 <jlaska> we have alpha anaconda criteria that it must be able to submit bug reports
16:05:51 <adamw> oh, i see
16:06:07 <adamw> i proposed criteria for this when it came up at the alpha meetings
16:06:10 <adamw> but didn't implement them yet
16:06:21 <adamw> thread - 'Release criteria proposal: automated bug checking tools functionality'
16:06:43 <jlaska> aah okay ... right I thought this topic came up already
16:06:44 <adamw> the proposal there is that by beta they must be able to report the bugs properly
16:06:59 <adamw> it got only one reply at the time, a question - no yays or nays
16:07:09 * jlaska hangs head
16:07:17 <jlaska> I'll queue that up for comments adamw
16:07:32 <jlaska> #action jlaska to add feedback to 'Release criteria proposal: automated bug checking tools functionality'
16:07:46 <jlaska> in the meantime, I'm comfortable tentatively approving this for beta.
16:08:00 <adamw> yeah, me too, let's leave it on the list till we decide on the criterion
16:08:04 <jlaska> Should discussion come back and say this isn't valid criteria for beta, we can re-evaluat next week
16:08:07 <jlaska> adamw: okay
16:08:23 <jlaska> adamw: you're much faster at the bz updates, are you comfortable running that today?
16:09:03 <adamw> sure. this seems like a somewhat slippery issue, though, it may not actually be affecting everyone. i can't recall if i've filed bugs with abrt in f14 lately...
16:09:38 <jlaska> #agreed 618504 - agreed to leave on the F14Beta list, and review next week pending outcome of improved beta release criteria
16:10:04 <jlaska> adamw: we have abrt test cases on the wiki, howabout a general call for test feedback to determine the extent of this bug
16:10:20 <jlaska> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:ABRT_Test_Cases
16:10:27 <adamw> might not need a general call, just a quick test
16:10:34 <jlaska> roger
16:11:08 <jlaska> #action 618504 - run through several ABRT test cases to confirm the impact of bug
16:11:32 <jlaska> adamw: you okay moving on?
16:11:44 <adamw> sure
16:12:31 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621027
16:12:33 <buggbot> Bug 621027: medium, low, ---, tcallawa, NEW, Graphical screen in anaconda shows F-13
16:12:54 <jlaska> I have an open action item on this issue from this weeks qa-meeting
16:13:08 <jlaska> I'll take care of this before our monday meeting
16:13:30 <adamw> right, we still need to set the expectations here together with the graphics team.
16:13:34 <adamw> probably leave it on the list until then.
16:13:42 <jlaska> To summarize, I believe approval of this issue for F14Beta depends on the discussion with the design-team
16:13:49 <jlaska> adamw: +1
16:14:27 <jlaska> #action 621027 - jlaska will reach out to design-team for guidance on artwork related release criteria
16:14:48 <jlaska> #agreed 621027 - will remain on the list pending review of artwork release criteria
16:14:59 <jlaska> I don't think there is much more to say on this one
16:15:04 <jlaska> that darn cranes at it again
16:15:26 <jlaska> next up ...
16:15:28 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621685
16:15:29 <buggbot> Bug 621685: medium, medium, ---, bcl, MODIFIED, TypeError: sequence item 0: expected string, NoneType found
16:15:58 <jlaska> I'm not quite sure we have specific release criteria to cover this issue
16:16:09 <adamw> i think you know the most about this one
16:16:19 <jlaska> my understanding of the failure is that any attempts to install to a system with an incomplete previous install (e.g. no /etc/fedora-release), will fail
16:16:25 <jlaska> iirc, it's already fixed in git
16:16:52 <jlaska> fixed in anaconda-14.16-1
16:17:08 <jlaska> to be honest, I think we may have this covered
16:17:19 <jlaska> but this might be a stretch
16:17:24 <jlaska> #info The rescue mode of the installer must be able to detect and mount (read-write and read-only) LVM, encrypted, and RAID (BIOS, hardware, and software) installations
16:17:33 <adamw> that's specifically about rescue mode.
16:17:42 <adamw> if rescue mode fails due to the same bug, sure.,
16:17:43 <jlaska> right ... which I haven't confirmed is impacted by this bug
16:17:52 <jlaska> definitely a stretch
16:18:23 <jlaska> this is an edge condition, but it's more common than I thought
16:18:33 <adamw> it may be under final criterion '#  The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system offered in a default installer configuration, LVM, software, hardware or BIOS RAID, or combination of the above ' but again a bit stretch-y. we might benefit from a specific criterion for handling existing disk contents.
16:19:13 <jlaska> we do havea catch-all for issues that impact many users, right?
16:19:33 <jlaska> howabout this ... let's move to F14Final based on the criteria you listed
16:19:46 <jlaska> if I can confirm whether this also impacts rescue-mode ... I can escalate for F14Beta
16:20:00 <jlaska> in the end ... it's already fixed and will be in the next anaconda build
16:20:14 <jlaska> but it's good to make sure we're capturing this (and similar future) issues properly
16:20:33 <adamw> yeah, it could be caught under the catchall
16:20:45 <adamw> yeah, we don't need to worry much about this specific issue
16:21:05 <jlaska> okay, so F14Final?
16:21:18 <jlaska> or leave as is since it's already resolved
16:21:23 <jlaska> (MODIFIED)
16:21:42 * jlaska +1 on F14Final based on criteria you listed above
16:22:47 <jlaska> #agreed 621685 - move to F14Final based on Final criteria that the installer must be able to create any workable partition layout
16:22:55 <adamw> ok
16:23:02 * jlaska assumes silence is consent ;)
16:23:08 * jlaska prepared with #undo as needed
16:23:23 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=622927
16:23:24 <buggbot> Bug 622927: medium, low, ---, rvykydal, MODIFIED, F14 Alpha RC2 - /etc/resolv.conf gets corrupted, cannot download packages
16:24:19 <jlaska> #info This should be fixed in anaconda-14.17-1 (F14 Beta).
16:25:42 <jlaska> hmm, possibly an Alpha criteria - "#  The installed system must be able to download and install updates with yum and PackageKit "
16:26:02 <jlaska> but again, a stretch
16:27:01 <adamw> i'm not entirely clear on the impact here
16:27:05 <adamw> it doesn't seem particularly obvious
16:27:28 <jlaska> something about Orion's network ... and anaconda is just doing things that NM is supposed to?
16:27:44 <adamw> does he mean that *the installer* can't download packages (and hence can't complete installation)?
16:27:49 <adamw> what exactly triggers this problem?
16:27:53 <adamw> i think we're short of info here
16:28:06 <adamw> but since it's getting fixed i'm not sure how hard we want to push
16:28:12 <jlaska> ah, you're right, the installer cannot download packages
16:28:50 <jlaska> recommendation?
16:29:53 <adamw> just leave it for now and wait for it to get fixed
16:29:55 <adamw> seems simplest
16:29:59 <jlaska> alrighty
16:30:28 <jlaska> #agreed 622927 - unclear what conditions lead up to this failure.  However the issue is resolved in next anaconda build
16:30:35 <jlaska> #undo
16:30:35 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x18355310>
16:30:46 <jlaska> #info unclear what conditions lead up to this failure.  However the issue is resolved in next anaconda build
16:31:00 <jlaska> #agreed 622927 - leave on F14Beta list
16:31:14 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623126
16:31:17 <buggbot> Bug 623126: medium, low, ---, jforbes, NEW, F14 Alpha CD mediacheck and install fail in KVM guest
16:33:59 <jlaska> If this is a common usage scenario, this may fall under "The release must boot successfully as a virtual guest in a situation where the virtual host is running the previous stable Fedora release (using Fedora's current preferred virtualization technology) "
16:34:19 <jlaska> robatino: also confirmed that the problem exists with F14 guest on F14 host
16:34:48 <adamw> sorry, got a bit busy
16:34:53 <robatino> jlaska: i also did this by using KVM's nested virtualization, but it was painfully slow
16:34:54 <adamw> back
16:35:13 <jlaska> I think jforbes can provide some guidance on what release the virt team would target for virt cd-swapping installs
16:35:30 <robatino> haven't checked with a rawhide "host" yet, would take a few hours
16:35:49 <jlaska> robatino: no worries, I don't think we'd need that
16:36:04 <jlaska> lemme ask jforbes ... I have a feeling this was Final release material when we hit this in F13
16:36:23 <adamw> if this only happens in virt, i don't think it's a blocker.
16:36:37 <adamw> realistically, what's the case for installing from split media on a VM?
16:36:48 <robatino> adamw: testing
16:36:50 <adamw> the only reason to use split media is if your system has no DVD drive, and you can't have a kvm without a DVD drive.
16:36:56 <jlaska> adamw: fair point ... it's certainly something that QA uses to expedite testing
16:37:27 <jlaska> rather than having to burn media
16:37:28 <adamw> jlaska: i don't think that's enough to make it a blocker, myself. after all, if it can fail in a KVM but work on real hardware, clearly testing it in a KVM isn't a great test.
16:37:30 <Oxf13> kvm + split media does not seem like a real case
16:37:38 <Oxf13> outside of testing whether or not split media works
16:37:50 <Oxf13> and that includes some fun "issues" with changing isos or physical media during install
16:37:53 <Oxf13> within a guest
16:38:01 <adamw> given that we provide the split media for a very specific case (real hardware with only a CD drive), the best method of testing seems to be to use the actual media
16:38:05 <adamw> on an actual machine
16:38:07 <jlaska> so it's a question as to whether this should block comes down to '#  Bug hinders execution of required Final testplans or dramatically reduces test coverage '
16:38:10 <jlaska> ?
16:38:23 <jlaska> I don't think this dramatically reduces test coverage
16:38:23 <Oxf13> "hinders" seems pretty vague
16:38:25 <adamw> sounds right. my vote is that it doesn't.
16:38:27 <jlaska> hey jforbes
16:38:48 <jforbes> heya
16:39:00 <jlaska> we've got 2 votes for removing # topic bug from F14Beta ... do you have any opinions on support for CD swapping for virt guest installs?
16:39:10 <adamw> we could probably clarify that 'hinders'
16:39:17 <adamw> to me it should be more like 'unavoidably hinders'
16:39:27 <robatino> i can't do split media testing with this bug since i only test within a VM
16:39:38 <adamw> a bug should have to really make testing close to impossible before we turn it into a blocker for the release, and this one really doesn't
16:39:49 <jforbes> It should be removed as a blocker, we have someone looking at it, but it is just a release note in RHEL, wont be fied soon
16:39:53 <adamw> robatino: sure, but we do have the capability to test outside of a KVM *as a team*
16:40:10 <jlaska> alright, 3 +1's for removing from F14Beta
16:40:49 <jlaska> I'm with robatino in that it it puts some roadblocks in front of tests for validating media
16:40:50 <jforbes> Of note, this was actually there in 13 as well, and we came to the same conclusion
16:41:11 <jlaska> jforbes: I remember we had a similiar issue, but forgot the conslusion
16:41:12 <robatino> there aren't that many people who test split media now
16:41:27 <jforbes> We do have someone looking at it, but it is not of the highest priority
16:41:39 <jlaska> adamw: F14Target
16:41:41 <jlaska> ?
16:42:19 <adamw> sure, why not.
16:42:34 <adamw> actually, no, i don't think it even qualifies for that, tbh
16:42:41 <jlaska> #info jforbes notes someone is looking into the issue, but it is not a high priority issue
16:42:49 <adamw> but hey, add it if it floats your boat =)
16:43:30 <jlaska> #agreed 623126 - does not meet any release criteria, remove from F14Beta
16:44:04 <jlaska> adamw: I don't have strong feelings about it .. just that I'd take it if it turned out to be a simple fix
16:44:09 <jlaska> jforbes: thanks for your input!
16:44:20 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623524
16:44:21 <buggbot> Bug 623524: medium, low, ---, anaconda-maint-list, NEW, Err during filesystem check after upgrading bootloader
16:44:30 <adamw> jlaska: i'd take it now, i'm not so sure i'd want to take it through a freeze...
16:44:38 <jforbes> NP
16:45:12 <jlaska> adamw: okay
16:45:20 <adamw> on the face of it this is clearly a blocker, be interesting to know if it happens in all cases though
16:45:33 <jlaska> this bug was filed by Mingtao
16:45:42 <jlaska> if this impacts all upgrades ... "#  The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually"
16:46:13 <jlaska> based on the test results wiki, this happens when upgrading and installing a new bootloader
16:46:19 <jlaska> but not when upgrading or skipping the bootloader creation
16:46:30 <adamw> ok
16:46:39 <adamw> well, i'd say we take it as a blocker and monitor.
16:46:42 <jlaska> +1
16:47:04 <jlaska> #info #  The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean, fully updated default installation of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually
16:47:33 <jlaska> #agreed 623524 - accepted as a F14Beta blocker .. will continue to monitor impact scope of this issue
16:47:42 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624208
16:47:43 <buggbot> Bug 624208: medium, low, ---, ajax, NEW, [F14 REGRESSION] KDE desktop effects with OpenGL: no display updates
16:48:15 <jlaska> adamw: definitely your territory
16:48:49 <jlaska> I guess the question is how many graphics adapters are affected by this?
16:49:13 <adamw> well, i'd also like to know exactly how you hit it
16:49:30 <adamw> if it requires manual intervention at any point to enable the affected desktop effects configuration, it's not a blocker
16:49:59 <jlaska> rdieter any thoughts?
16:51:02 <rdieter> jlaska: whether it's blocker-worthy?  (probably not, imo, we've not considered opengl support as blockers before have we?)
16:51:17 <adamw> rdieter: for me it depends if it's the default config
16:51:20 <rdieter> it is not
16:51:27 <adamw> ok, then i'd say no blocker
16:51:31 <adamw> but i'll wait for stefan's reply
16:52:05 <rdieter> I'll be doing more extensive f14-related testing myself (using intel hardware) soon, so will be able to provide more feedback then too.
16:52:11 <jlaska> #info 624208 - wait for feedback from Stefan in the bz
16:52:19 <jlaska> so leave on the list now,pending feedback?
16:52:27 <adamw> yeah, for now, but we're leaning towards not-a-blocker.
16:52:40 <jlaska> #agree 624208 - on the surface, doesn't appear as a blocker.  Waiting on reporter feedback.
16:52:49 <jlaska> last one ...
16:52:55 <jlaska> rdieter: thanks!
16:52:59 <jlaska> #topic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624971
16:53:00 <buggbot> Bug 624971: medium, low, ---, rhughes, NEW, Fail to upgrade with preupgrade-1.1.4-1.fc13
16:54:14 <adamw> looks like a fairly obvious blocker
16:54:14 <jlaska> rhe identified the specific criteria impacted in comment#1
16:54:23 <jlaska> agreed, well done rhe
16:54:28 <adamw> oh looky who's here =)
16:54:58 <jlaska> #info The installer must be able to successfully complete an upgrade installation
16:55:01 <jlaska> from a clean, fully updated default installation of the previous stable Fedora
16:55:02 <wwoods> OH SNAP THEY SAW ME
16:55:04 <jlaska> #info release, either via preupgrade or by booting to the installer manually
16:55:07 <jlaska> wwoods: run away!
16:55:08 * wwoods flee
16:55:27 <jlaska> #agreed 624971 - approved as a F14Beta blocker
16:55:32 <jlaska> #topic Open discussion
16:55:51 <jlaska> alright, anything else to discuss here today?
16:56:12 <jlaska> fine art, politics, long walks on the beach?
16:56:41 * jlaska will close out the meeting in 1 minute
16:57:14 <jlaska> 30 seconds ...
16:57:18 <adamw> see! he's after my maidenhead!
16:57:20 <adamw> zodbot, protect me
16:57:27 <jlaska> goodness
16:57:45 <jlaska> Okay ladies and gentlemen, thanks all for your attendance
16:57:52 <jlaska> I'll send the minutes to test@ and devel@ for review
16:58:05 <jlaska> now back to regularly scheduled systemd discussions
16:58:10 <jlaska> #endmeeting