#fedora-bugzappers: Fedora 15 Blocker Review #4

Meeting started by adamw at 17:02:18 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

  1. intro (adamw, 17:03:41)
    1. tflink will be our secretary for this week (adamw, 17:06:22)

  2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696278 (adamw, 17:06:40)
    1. AGREED: 696278 tracks down to a dupe of 678553, which was indeed a blocker bug but was fixed; we see no reports of anyone doing an upgrade with an NM package fixed wrt 678553 and still having problems. closing it as a dupe. (adamw, 17:09:58)

  3. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702261 (adamw, 17:10:21)
    1. AGREED: 702261 rejectedblocker, rejectednth: this is not a behavior change and does not impact any criteria, we have shipped this way for a while, impact is not horrible (adamw, 17:13:35)

  4. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702603 (adamw, 17:13:51)
    1. AGREED: 702603 acceptedblocker (on a split vote) under 'any workable layout' criterion (adamw, 17:22:18)
    2. ACTION: anaconda team to submit a new build with the fix (adamw, 17:22:36)

  5. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702003 (adamw, 17:23:19)
    1. AGREED: 702003 rejectedblocker rejectednth: only affects services with both systemd and sysv definitions, does not clearly hit any criteria, and doesn't seem to have a significant enough impact for nth. there are workarounds for scripts that use this functionality. (adamw, 17:33:04)

  6. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698654 (adamw, 17:33:21)
    1. AGREED: 698654 for now rejectedblocker rejectednth on the basis that it only affects yum upgrades, which are not supported - also, this can be fixed with a post-release update for the yum case, as yum implies the use of an up-to-date repo. we will ask reporter / jlaska to re-test with preupgrade or dvd upgrade and confirm whether this affects those cases (adamw, 17:44:50)

  7. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701648 (adamw, 17:45:27)
    1. AGREED: 701648 acceptedblocker per criteria cited by jlaska, fix is in (adamw, 17:47:41)

  8. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690873 (adamw, 17:47:58)
    1. AGREED: need more info on exact impact of 690873 to determine blocker status, we will ask for more info in the bug report, and follow up with evaluation via the report (adamw, 17:57:45)

  9. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688277 (adamw, 17:58:01)
    1. AGREED: 688277 rejectedblocker, acceptednth - inaccurate mount output doesn't hit any criteria, but it's obviously something we should do right (adamw, 18:02:31)

  10. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690873 redux (adamw, 18:02:46)
  11. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701999 (adamw, 18:07:14)
    1. AGREED: 701999 rejectedblocker, does not hit any criteria. for now, rejectednth as there's no clear path to fixing this in a minimum-impact way in time for f15; we will ask bastien to re-propose if he has a workable proposal (adamw, 18:19:39)

  12. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701622 (adamw, 18:20:09)
    1. AGREED: 701622 rejectedblocker as no practical impact demonstrated, acceptednth to fix the error message and as fix is safe and simple (adamw, 18:26:03)

  13. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699198 (adamw, 18:27:19)
    1. AGREED: 699198 rejectedblocker as there's a simple workaround (enable it) which can be clearly documented. acceptednth (adamw, 18:31:48)

  14. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702650 (adamw, 18:32:32)
    1. AGREED: 702650 unable to determine status with current data: impact is bad, but only one specific and quite odd layout is known to be affected, others using encrypted partitions do not report seeing the same problem. also need to know if booting without plymouth or without rhgb quiet acts as a workaround. if halfline can figure out the bug that may help assess impact (adamw, 18:45:13)

  15. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696320 (adamw, 18:45:43)
    1. ACTION: jlaska to test latest firstboot update for 696320 (adamw, 18:46:58)

  16. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684846 (adamw, 18:47:10)
    1. AGREED: 684846 can be closed, fixed selinux-policy has gone stable (adamw, 18:47:59)

  17. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702650 redux (adamw, 18:49:13)
  18. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699905 (adamw, 18:51:35)
  19. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697834 (adamw, 18:55:15)
  20. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699113 (adamw, 19:06:59)
    1. AGREED: 699113 acceptednth: cosmetic issue but affects all installs and confuses people, fixing it would be a good thing (adamw, 19:08:39)

  21. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702067 (adamw, 19:09:28)
    1. AGREED: 702067 acceptednth, criteria-breaking issue in non-blocking desktops (lxde and xfce) (adamw, 19:11:12)

  22. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702633 (adamw, 19:11:25)
    1. AGREED: 702633 rejectednth for now as there's no clear rationale, if simo doesn't manage to push the fix before the freeze and has a real reason it needs to break freeze, he can re-propose (adamw, 19:16:31)

  23. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699432 (adamw, 19:17:17)
    1. AGREED: 699432 rejectednth given samuel's assessment, particularly the point about not affecting default configuration (adamw, 19:21:18)

  24. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702480 (adamw, 19:21:31)
    1. AGREED: 702480 acceptednth, criteria-breaking issue in a non-blocker desktop (adamw, 19:25:47)

  25. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699027 (adamw, 19:26:00)
    1. AGREED: 699027 -1 nth; it's clearly a bug that should get fixed but no clear rationale for why we should break the freeze (i.e. no scenario has been described in which it can affect something for which a post-release update wouldn't be an acceptable fix). can be re-proposed with a more specific rationale for nth status. freeze is not till 9th, fix can still go in before that. (adamw, 19:39:44)

  26. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701704 (adamw, 19:40:06)
  27. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699027 (adamw, 19:40:57)
    1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702633 was marked refused NTH, we would like to challenge this. (sgallagh, 19:45:23)
    2. AGREED: 699027 final vote: rejectednth as there's still no known scenario of breakage on dvd, live images, or otherwise affecting the frozen package set (adamw, 19:54:57)

  28. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701704 (adamw, 19:55:32)
    1. AGREED: 701704 rejectednth as it seems all parties agreed fixing in f15 timeframe isn't practical, but change should be documented somehow (adamw, 20:06:02)

  29. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=681750 (adamw, 20:06:42)
  30. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702749 (adamw, 20:15:04)
    1. AGREED: 702749 is a dupe of 690873 (adamw, 20:16:53)

  31. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697649 (adamw, 20:17:03)
    1. AGREED: 697649 acceptednth, criteria breaking issue in non-blocking desktop (Sugar) (adamw, 20:20:07)

  32. open floor (adamw, 20:21:16)
  33. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=702740 (adamw, 20:24:20)
    1. AGREED: 702740 rejectedblocker as it doesn't cause any major breakage, only 'wrong' interface names if biosdevname is disabled. acceptednth as the if names are fixed during install and can't be fixed with post-release updates (adamw, 20:45:22)

Meeting ended at 20:46:40 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. anaconda team to submit a new build with the fix
  2. jlaska to test latest firstboot update for 696320

People present (lines said)

  1. adamw (402)
  2. tflink (130)
  3. dgilmore (72)
  4. brunowolff (49)
  5. buggbot (36)
  6. rbergeron (18)
  7. halfline (16)
  8. narendrak (15)
  9. bcl (11)
  10. sgallagh (10)
  11. fenrus02 (9)
  12. clumens (8)
  13. elad661 (8)
  14. simo (7)
  15. zodbot (4)
  16. vhumpa (4)
  17. mcepl (3)
  18. Venemo (2)
  19. nirik (1)

Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.