17:00:16 <jkurik> #startmeeting F27 Beta Go/No-Go meeting - 2nd round
17:00:16 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 21 17:00:16 2017 UTC.  The chair is jkurik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:16 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:16 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27_beta_go/no-go_meeting_-_2nd_round'
17:00:18 <jkurik> #meetingname F27-Beta-Go-No-Go-meeting-2nd
17:00:18 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f27-beta-go-no-go-meeting-2nd'
17:00:26 <jkurik> #chair nirik pschindl sgallagh mboddu kparal
17:00:26 <zodbot> Current chairs: jkurik kparal mboddu nirik pschindl sgallagh
17:00:30 <bowlofoutage> .hello2
17:00:31 <zodbot> bowlofoutage: Sorry, but you don't exist
17:00:38 <jkurik> #topic Roll Call
17:00:41 * pschindl is here
17:00:45 <sgallagh> .hello2
17:00:45 <nirik> morning
17:00:45 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:00:46 <jkurik> .hello2
17:00:47 <bowlofoutage> haha wut
17:00:48 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
17:00:54 <frantisekz> .hello2
17:00:55 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
17:01:05 <bowlofoutage> oh right
17:01:05 <bowlofeggs> .hello2
17:01:06 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: bowlofeggs 'Randy Barlow' <randy@electronsweatshop.com>
17:01:09 <jkurik> bowlofoutage: you need to use FAS name
17:01:30 <kparal> .hello2
17:01:31 <zodbot> kparal: kparal 'Kamil Páral' <kparal@redhat.com>
17:01:43 <mboddu> .hello mohanboddu
17:01:44 <zodbot> mboddu: mohanboddu 'Mohan Boddu' <mboddu@bhujji.com>
17:01:45 <jkurik> hi everybody
17:01:49 <jkurik> #topic Purpose of this meeting
17:01:58 <jkurik> #info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F27 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
17:02:04 <jkurik> #info This is determined in a few ways:
17:02:12 <jkurik> #info * No remaining blocker bugs
17:02:20 <jkurik> #info * Release candidate compose is available
17:02:27 <jkurik> #info * Test matrices for Beta are fully completed
17:02:34 <jkurik> #topic Current status
17:02:40 <jkurik> As far as I am aware, the RC for F27 Beta is not yet ready.
17:02:46 <jkurik> As such, we do not have test matrices for the RC.
17:02:54 <jkurik> There is request to build RC: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7064
17:03:03 <jkurik> The lastest F27 nightly compose is available at https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose//branched/Fedora-27-20170920.n.0/
17:03:08 <nirik> it's composing now.
17:03:10 <jkurik> And latest test matrices for a nightly build:
17:03:19 <jkurik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_27_Branched_20170912.n.0_Base
17:03:56 <jkurik> nirik: Fedora-27-20170920.n.0 should be already composed; Fedora-27-20170921.n.0 is in progress IMO
17:04:07 <kparal> here's a summary of all the latest test matrices: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_27_Branched_20170912.n.0_Summary
17:04:15 <nirik> jkurik: I meant the RC is in progress
17:04:26 <jkurik> ah, ok
17:04:55 <jkurik> #info The RC for F27 Beta is not yet ready
17:04:56 <jkurik> #link https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7064 - request for RC compose
17:05:07 <jkurik> #info the compose is currently in progress
17:05:22 <jkurik> #link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/27/beta/buglist - F27 Blockers
17:05:35 <jkurik> anyone wants to add something ?
17:06:24 <jkurik> #info As we have no RC there are subsequently no Test Matrices for the F27 Beta RC
17:06:35 <jkurik> Let's do at least Mini-blocker review
17:06:44 <jkurik> pschindl: may I ask you please to chair the mini-blocker review ?
17:06:56 <pschindl> #topic Mini-Blocker Review
17:07:10 <pschindl> jkurik: yep, let's do it.
17:07:13 <jkurik> pschindl: thanks
17:07:23 <pschindl> #topic Introduction
17:07:25 <pschindl> Why are we here?
17:07:33 <pschindl> #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.
17:07:34 <pschindl> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:07:42 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:07:44 <pschindl> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:07:46 <pschindl> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:07:53 <pschindl> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:07:55 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:07:57 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:07:59 <pschindl> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Final_Release_Criteria
17:08:13 <pschindl> Currently there is 8 proposed blockers, so let's start with them
17:08:23 <pschindl> #topic (1491119) server/workstation netinst in text mode crashes with pyanaconda.payload.NoSuchGroup: 3
17:08:25 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491119
17:08:27 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
17:09:15 <kparal> so, provided traditional server media is atm non-blocking, this only affects Workstation netinst
17:09:31 <kparal> text mode is completely broken
17:10:04 <nirik> yeah, completely broken is pretty blockery...
17:10:12 <jkurik> +1 to block
17:10:38 <kparal> current workaround is to use graphical mode or everything netinst
17:10:45 * nirik looks for critera... just all install methods must work?
17:11:18 <kparal> Lili linked https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Installation_interfaces
17:11:18 <jkurik> nirik: When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces.
17:11:22 <kparal> "When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces. "
17:11:52 <nirik> right. thanks.
17:11:57 <nirik> +1 blocker here
17:12:07 <sgallagh> Yeah, +1 blocker
17:13:21 <kparal> I actually was expecting people saying text mode is not that important for workstation image, or that everything netinst is fine :)
17:13:44 <kparal> +1 blocker is the correct way here, yes
17:14:03 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1491119 - AcceptedBlocker (beta) - This bug violates the alpha criterion: ""When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces."
17:14:14 <jkurik> ack
17:14:16 <kparal> ack
17:14:37 <nirik> ack
17:14:38 <frantisekz> ack
17:14:50 <pschindl> #agreed - 1491119 - AcceptedBlocker (beta) - This bug violates the alpha criterion: ""When using a dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to complete an installation using the text, graphical and VNC installation interfaces."
17:15:18 <pschindl> #topic (1490832) dnf system-upgrade: dnf.exceptions.MarkingError: no package matched
17:15:20 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490832
17:15:22 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, dnf-plugins-extras, POST
17:15:49 <kparal> this affects only upgrade attempts which use --enablerepo option
17:16:03 <kparal> and there is an easy workaround available - just enable the repo permanently before running system-upgrade
17:16:22 <nirik> and the failure on --enablerepo just doesn't do the update? ie, it doesn't mess up the system?
17:16:27 <kparal> therefore I believe this is -1 Beta blocker, perhaps +1 Final blocker (we don't need to discuss that now)
17:16:41 <frantisekz> nirik: it just doesn't do the update
17:16:43 <kparal> nirik: no, it doesn't break anything, just reboots back almost immediately
17:16:48 <nirik> right. just confirming.
17:17:06 <nirik> -1 blocker, I guess I could be +1 FE...
17:17:16 <jkurik> I am +1FE
17:17:17 <kparal> we don't need FE, it's for F26
17:17:20 <kparal> the fix
17:17:40 <nirik> ah ha.
17:17:47 <nirik> ok, cool.
17:17:50 <jkurik> true
17:18:09 <kparal> -1 beta blocker from me
17:18:13 <pschindl> I'm -1 beta totally, there is an easy workaround and no data are lost.
17:18:22 <jkurik> ack
17:18:34 <mboddu> -1 blocker
17:18:35 <frantisekz> -1 beta blocker
17:18:47 <mkolman> BTW, for 1491119 - I'll be doing an Anaconda build with a fix later today
17:19:07 <kparal> mkolman: great, thanks
17:19:27 <jkurik> mkolman: thanks
17:19:34 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1490832 - RejectedBlocker (beta) - there is an easy workaround - enable repo before running update. No data are lost. We will repropose as Final blocker
17:19:45 <jkurik> ack
17:19:46 <kparal> ack
17:19:47 <frantisekz> ack
17:19:50 <nirik> ack
17:20:07 <pschindl> #agreed - 1490832 - RejectedBlocker (beta) - there is an easy workaround - enable repo before running update. No data are lost. We will repropose as Final blocker
17:20:18 <pschindl> #topic (1492036) system-upgrade tried to connect to online mirrors during upgrade
17:20:20 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492036
17:20:22 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, dnf-plugin-system-upgrade, NEW
17:21:24 <kparal> we didn't have much time to test this due to the other dnf bug, but we haven't hit this, at least I'm not aware of anyone
17:21:38 <kparal> so this is a single person reporting this issue
17:21:41 <nirik> well, the reporter...
17:22:03 <kparal> I think this is safe to reject as beta blocker
17:22:04 <nirik> I wonder if it's related to the other one, seems similar symptoms.
17:22:27 <kparal> I pinged dnf folks about it, I hope they'll look at it once they finish fixing the other issue
17:22:44 <pschindl> Who will do the secretary stuff?
17:22:47 <nirik> yeah, if it's not widespread/reproducable, then -1 blocker.
17:22:51 <kparal> pschindl: I'm already doing that
17:22:58 <pschindl> kparal: thank you
17:23:46 <jkurik> I am -1 to block. People might re-propose in case this will be more offten issue
17:24:37 <sgallagh> -1
17:25:20 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1492036 - RejectedBlocker (beta) - Just single person (reporter) was able to reproduce. If there will be more reports, it can be re-proposed
17:25:38 <kparal> ack
17:25:39 <jkurik> ack
17:26:53 <pschindl> what about others? ack/nack/edit?
17:26:55 <frantisekz> ack
17:27:04 <nirik> ack
17:27:22 <pschindl> #agreed - 1492036 - RejectedBlocker (beta) - Just single person (reporter) was able to reproduce. If there will be more reports, it can be re-proposed
17:27:42 <pschindl> #topic (1494061) gnome-software doesn't show F25->F27 upgrade even though it should
17:27:44 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494061
17:27:46 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-software, NEW
17:28:06 <kparal> kalev: have you had chance to look at this?
17:28:34 <kparal> I discovered this today
17:29:40 <kparal> again, it's a direct violation. the workaround is to do 2 upgrades, or use dnf system-upgrade
17:30:06 <jkurik> should not this bug be somehow related to this: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/X62V2QS6RGT7TKS25O6RF2DSUB7YXAXA/#X62V2QS6RGT7TKS25O6RF2DSUB7YXAXA ?
17:30:28 <kparal> yes, perhaps there's just something wrong in pkgdb
17:30:39 <kparal> I can't say, the json retrieved looks quite ok
17:30:47 <jkurik> I looks to me like so
17:31:06 <nirik> I don't think it is.
17:31:33 <nirik> if you set that you want to see prereleases, it's just showing you the prerelease...
17:31:48 <kparal> it's showing F27 correctly when you're on F26
17:32:00 <kparal> just for F25, it's showing F26 even if it should show F27
17:33:05 <jkurik> anyway, we have an workaround for this bug
17:33:35 <jkurik> so I am -1 to block on this
17:33:49 <kparal> well we had workaround even for workstation netinst text mode
17:34:06 <jkurik> kparal: do you mean graphical install ?
17:34:12 <kparal> use a different tool seems similar to use a different image :)
17:34:14 <nirik> so, the fix here is likely in f25's gnome-software?
17:34:25 <kparal> nirik: yes, it might
17:34:38 <nirik> kparal: well, you can do f26 then f27 via the tool right?
17:34:53 <kparal> nirik: yes, it's just not 'direct' as required in criterion
17:36:07 <kparal> I don't have a strong opinion here. it should be +1 blocker, but sufficient other ways exist, so if you want to reject it, I won't object
17:36:08 <nirik> yeah, I think thats the workaround jkurik was indicating...
17:37:15 <jkurik> voting ? I am still -1 to block
17:37:33 <nirik> I guess I am -1 blocker as well... +1 FE, and if we can get a fix in f25 before we release f27 beta all the better.
17:37:41 <frantisekz> -1 blocker
17:37:43 <kparal> again, FE is not needed here :)
17:38:01 <jkurik> kparal: just in case :)
17:38:57 <nirik> sure, likely the fix is in f25 side
17:38:57 <sgallagh> -1 blocker
17:41:12 <nirik> kparal: you did set it to show prerelease right? (just making sure)
17:41:22 <kparal> nirik: I double checked now
17:41:23 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1494061 - RejectedBlocker - There is an workaround to update to F26 or to use another tool.
17:41:29 <nirik> ok. :)
17:41:32 <kparal> ack
17:41:51 <jkurik> ack
17:42:03 <kparal> patch
17:42:07 <kparal> RejectedBlocker(beta)
17:42:27 <kparal> proposed #agreed - 1494061 - RejectedBlocker (beta) - There is an workaround to update to F26 or to use another tool.
17:42:56 <jkurik> ack
17:43:14 <nirik> ack
17:43:26 <pschindl> #agreed - 1494061 - RejectedBlocker (beta) - There is an workaround to update to F26 or to use another tool.
17:43:44 <pschindl> #topic (1494138) crashes in wayland/Xorg on vc4 with 4.13 with the Raspberry Pi
17:43:46 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494138
17:43:48 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, kernel, ON_QA
17:44:08 <kparal> this one is very fresh
17:44:18 <kparal> I haven't seen it yet
17:44:57 <kparal> I believe only XFCE is release blocking on armhfp
17:45:39 <nirik> yeah, but not sure what desktop(s) were hitting this... possibly all?
17:45:48 <nirik> pbrobinson: you happen to be around?
17:46:01 <kparal> I wonder where this is documented, I again can't find it
17:47:01 <pbrobinson> it is XFCE, but the kernel issue I put as a blocker was all desktops, worse on workstation, but seen actively on XFCE too
17:47:10 * pbrobinson is here for about 2 mins
17:47:37 <jkurik> pbrobinson: is it this image: Spins/armhfp/images/Fedora-Xfce-armhfp-_RELEASE_MILESTONE_-sda.raw.xz
17:47:40 <jkurik> ?
17:47:51 <pbrobinson> looks about right
17:48:20 <jkurik> thanks, I am asking because this one is a blocking one
17:48:32 <pbrobinson> yup, that's what I thought
17:49:18 <kparal> this doesn't affect installation nor live, and the kernel can be easily updated after installation
17:49:29 <kparal> also, this is Beta. so I don't see this as critical
17:49:50 <kparal> but rpi is popular, that's true
17:49:52 <pbrobinson> kparal: it affects disk images which is similar to lives
17:50:06 <kparal> I mean it can't prevent installation
17:50:08 <kparal> since that's just dd
17:50:16 <kparal> it affects you after you boot
17:50:18 <pbrobinson> it can be updated post install
17:50:32 <pbrobinson> post boot even
17:51:05 <pbrobinson> if it doesn't crash while you're doing initial setup so you can actually log in
17:51:29 <jkurik> if we can update it post install/boot I would be -1 to block on this
17:52:41 <jkurik> we already have a fix, so I am about to give it +1 FE
17:52:47 <pbrobinson> I've seen it crash during graphical initial-setup which prevents login and hence updating
17:53:58 <nirik> :( thats no good.
17:54:21 <kparal> I'm not too happy about bringing yet another broken kernel in, but if it can prevent logging in, I guess I'd be more convinced
17:54:48 <nirik> I guess +1 blocker... I don't see much way around it unless we want to hope people can get in and upgrade (and they may not know to even)
17:54:53 <pbrobinson> another? what's the NVR of the "broken" kernel, and why was it broken?
17:55:06 <pbrobinson> kparal: ^^ that was for you
17:55:58 <kparal> the latest kernel updates broke qxl VMs
17:56:14 <kparal> which means almost all VMs, since it's default in Fedora
17:56:25 <pbrobinson> kparal: if you look at the changelog that apparently fixes that too
17:56:31 <kparal> that was rejected as Beta blocker, which in comparison can be considered worse than rpi problems
17:57:12 <pbrobinson> kparal: but the RPi is a blocking ARM device and it's affecting a blocking desktop for ARM
17:58:14 * kparal shrugs
17:58:19 <kparal> I'm fine with +1 blocker
17:58:29 <nirik> this update also has a bunch of other fixes too...
17:58:40 <nirik> 4.13.3 stable stuff.
17:58:52 <pbrobinson> kparal: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=973169 "Fixes for QXL (rhbz 1462381) "
17:59:08 <pbrobinson> plus a bunch of CVEs too I believe
17:59:11 * jkurik is changing his mind
17:59:19 <nirik> yeah, some cves also.
17:59:20 <jkurik> +1 to block as we can not log-in
17:59:24 <nirik> seems a big pile of change.
17:59:42 <kparal> pbrobinson: according to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462381#c52 that doesn't sound so easy, but I'll be hoping
17:59:52 <jkurik> nirik:  yeah, a source of more potentional blockers
17:59:57 <pbrobinson> the 4.13 stable series haven't been too large in terms of upstream changes
18:00:37 <nirik> well, anyhow, I am +1 blocker
18:00:38 <pbrobinson> like upstream for 4.13.3 the biggest was XFS https://lwn.net/Articles/734243/
18:01:02 <nirik> but IMHO we will need a fair bit of testing to everything to make sure there's no gotchas in this.
18:01:39 <pbrobinson> I've tested this kernel on a x86 VM and around a dozen ARM devices today
18:01:58 <pschindl> Do someone has some criterion which it violates?
18:02:01 <kparal> since we're slipping, we should be able to test new kernel properly
18:02:24 <kparal> but we should push it stable asap, so that it gets testing in composes
18:03:16 <kparal> pschindl: you can use " A working mechanism to create a user account must be clearly presented during installation and/or first boot of the installed system. "
18:03:18 <kparal> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Expected_installed_system_boot_behavior
18:03:29 <kparal> that breaks when that kernel panic occurs
18:03:36 <pschindl> kparal: Thanks. I was just thinking about this one :)
18:05:09 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1494138 - AcceptedBlocker (beta) - This bug can prevent initial-setup to finish. This violates the Alpha criterion: "A working mechanism to create a user account must be clearly presented during installation and/or first boot of the installed system."
18:05:26 <nirik> ack
18:05:45 <kparal> ack
18:06:12 <jkurik> ack
18:06:48 <pschindl> pbrobinson, frantisekz: ack/nack?
18:07:20 <frantisekz> ack, sorry :)
18:07:31 <pschindl> #agreed - 1494138 - AcceptedBlocker (beta) - This bug can prevent initial-setup to finish. This violates the Alpha criterion: "A working mechanism to create a user account must be clearly presented during installation and/or first boot of the installed system."
18:07:44 <pschindl> #topic (1483331) Couldn't start mariadb.service
18:07:46 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483331
18:07:48 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, POST
18:08:25 <kparal> workaround is in comment 4
18:08:34 <frantisekz> fix is ready: https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy-contrib/commit/542b8bfcda1e26524d735ec09016abd3278ae4e0
18:08:49 <frantisekz> but i don't see any koji build with the fix inc
18:08:54 <kparal> the justification is in comment 3
18:09:27 <kparal> since the criteria only talk about postgress, I think a blocker is not justified here
18:09:38 <nirik> -1  blocker, +1 FE
18:09:44 <kparal> this will be available as an update, of course. and we can give it FE
18:09:57 <frantisekz> -1 blocker; +1 FE
18:10:03 <pschindl> -1 blocker, +1 FE too
18:10:24 <kparal> -1 blocker, +1 FE
18:11:16 <jkurik> +1 FE
18:12:16 <jsmith> -1 blocker, +1 FE
18:12:30 * mattdm apologizes -- firefighting right now
18:12:52 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1483331 - RejectedBlocker (beta) AcceptedFreezeException - mariadb isn't blocking for Server Database role, but it is important enough so the fixing update will be considered as Freeze Exception
18:12:58 <jsmith> mattdm: Et tu, Brute?
18:13:12 <kparal> ack
18:13:18 <jkurik> ack
18:13:48 <frantisekz> ack
18:13:51 <nirik> ack
18:14:02 <pschindl> #agreed - 1483331 - RejectedBlocker (beta) AcceptedFreezeException - mariadb isn't blocking for Server Database role, but it is important enough so the fixing update will be considered as Freeze Exception
18:14:14 <pschindl> #topic (1494108) On KDE, selinux prevents log in with newly created user
18:14:16 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494108
18:14:18 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, selinux-policy, NEW
18:14:58 <pschindl> What about just saying that KDE isn't primary DE :)
18:15:11 <frantisekz> pschindl: +1 :)
18:15:16 <jkurik> pschindl: but it is blocking anyway
18:15:21 <kparal> lbrabec references https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Beta_Release_Criteria#Shutdown.2C_reboot.2C_logout
18:15:29 <kparal> which doesn't exactly cover this I think
18:15:47 <kparal> but it's quite severe that newly created users can't log in
18:16:16 <kparal> it could be under https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Final_Release_Criteria#Default_application_functionality but that's Final
18:16:30 <jkurik> what about the Alpha criterion: "A working mechanism to create a user account must be clearly presented during installation and/or first boot of the installed system."
18:16:39 <pschindl> Isn't this just problem of the tool which is used to create the user?
18:16:56 <kparal> jkurik: that's just about the first user account, and that works
18:17:02 <jkurik> true
18:17:08 <kparal> even though it was untested with graphical initial setup for KDE, it might not
18:17:34 <kparal> it's unfortunate lbrabec didn't also test useradd
18:17:54 <kparal> but according comment 5 that might be the case
18:18:19 <jkurik> ok, so -1 beta blocker, +1 final blocker ?
18:18:21 <kparal> in that case this would be Final
18:18:40 <kparal> pschindl: I don't have KDE installed, do you?
18:18:47 <kparal> or frantisekz
18:19:01 <jkurik> I have, but F26 only
18:19:31 <kparal> ok, so let's settle for -1 beta +1 final. it seems like kuser issue
18:19:54 <frantisekz> I have KDE
18:20:08 <frantisekz> should I try useradd?
18:20:13 <kparal> frantisekz: can you quickly test useradd foo, passwd foo, login?
18:20:21 <frantisekz> yep
18:21:10 <mkolman> BTW, in some cases Initial Setup might be needed in case you don't have root on the machine
18:21:25 <mkolman> as IS runs under root & can create a user
18:22:05 <mkolman> a pretty specific use case though (pre-prepared/OEM installs)
18:23:32 <frantisekz> I was able to log in just fine after creating the account with useradd
18:23:42 <kparal> ok, -1 beta +1 final stands
18:23:53 <frantisekz> ...just for the record, I have KDE only in VM...
18:24:01 <kparal> the criterion would be "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test. "
18:24:13 <kparal> frantisekz: should not affect anything
18:24:54 <pschindl> proposed #agreed - 1494108 - RejectedBlocker (beta) AcceptedBlocker (final) - This bug violates the final criterion: "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test.
18:24:59 <pschindl> "
18:25:03 <kparal> ack
18:25:04 <frantisekz> ack
18:25:24 <jkurik> ack
18:26:00 <pschindl> #agreed - 1494108 - RejectedBlocker (beta) AcceptedBlocker (final) - This bug violates the final criterion: "All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality test."
18:26:05 <pschindl> And the last one
18:26:15 <pschindl> #topic (1492981) pyanaconda.ui.gui.xkl_wrapper.XklWrapperError: Failed to replace/add layout with: 'in (eng)'
18:26:17 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492981
18:26:19 <pschindl> #info Proposed Blocker, xkeyboard-config, ON_QA
18:27:02 <kparal> this is already fixed, verified just now
18:27:35 <kparal> so I'll close it and we can skip it
18:27:48 <nirik> fixed in a stable package?
18:27:59 <kparal> yes
18:28:07 <nirik> cool
18:28:51 <kparal> are we going now through accepted blocker or what's the usual practice, pschindl ?
18:29:15 <pschindl> #info This bug is already verified and in stable.
18:29:53 <pschindl> We probably should go through them. If there isn't someone against.
18:29:57 <kparal> we definitely need to decide which accepted blockers no longer block common fedora release and are modular server specific. but that seems pretty clear
18:30:21 <kparal> pschindl: so let's do that
18:30:38 <kparal> rather quickly, before everybody dies of boredom
18:30:53 <pschindl> #topic (1491333) kickstart installations using autopart fail with 'Kickstart insufficient'
18:30:55 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491333
18:30:57 <pschindl> #info Accepted Blocker, anaconda, ON_QA
18:31:34 <pschindl> This still needs testing.
18:31:43 <pschindl> We are waiting for today's compose
18:31:46 <kparal> correct
18:32:18 <pschindl> #info We are waiting for build with fixed anaconda to test.
18:32:26 <pschindl> #topic (1489164) Fedora 27 Beta backgrounds must be different from Fedora 26
18:32:28 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489164
18:32:30 <pschindl> #info Accepted Blocker, distribution, VERIFIED
18:32:53 <kparal> this also needs verification with latest compose
18:32:58 <pschindl> This is already verified and fixing updates should be in RC
18:32:58 <kparal> we verified with just a package update
18:33:06 <pschindl> ok
18:33:48 <pschindl> #info We verified that update fixes this but we are still waiting for build with updated packages to test it.
18:33:56 <pschindl> #topic (1490762) Ipa-server-install update dse.ldif with wrong SELinux context
18:33:58 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490762
18:34:00 <pschindl> #info Accepted Blocker, freeipa, ON_QA
18:34:32 <kparal> this one is moved to modular server beta blocker queue, correct?
18:34:47 <jkurik> kparal: I would say so
18:34:59 <kparal> we hope a next compose will be tested by openqa and can confirm the fix
18:35:15 <kparal> otherwise we'll need to pester server sig to confirm this, since adamw is away
18:35:19 <kparal> sgallagh: ^^
18:35:25 <pschindl> This should be on today's compose
18:35:29 * sgallagh looks
18:35:30 <kparal> (the same applies for all freeipa bugs)
18:35:34 <sgallagh> Sorry, juggling a lot today
18:35:35 <nirik> and in the rc
18:35:47 <pschindl> true
18:36:07 <kparal> I'll add a prefix to subject to all modular server bugs so that it's clear
18:36:17 <kparal> unfortunately we can't separate them in blockerbugs app easily
18:36:21 <kparal> I already tried
18:36:37 * nirik has no idea which are modular, I haven't looked at the proposed critera
18:37:14 <kparal> nirik: I'm just assuming everything that would block server normally now blocks modular server
18:37:18 <jkurik> nirik: all bugs affecting only the server variant
18:37:22 <kparal> we can deal with details later
18:37:30 <kparal> jkurik: right
18:37:38 <pschindl> I don't think that this one is covered with openqa, so it would be good to have someone who is able to test it
18:37:42 <nirik> well, I am sure there will be details... and I know some things won't make sense.
18:37:58 <nirik> anything calling rolekit for example
18:38:28 <nirik> anyhow, don't mean to sidetrack. This should be addressed, so lets move on. ;)
18:38:31 <kparal> ok, we'll bug server sig about this
18:39:04 <pschindl> #info the fix will be on RC and today's compose and needs testing
18:39:15 <pschindl> #topic (1491056) FreeIPA enrolment via kickstart fails
18:39:17 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491056
18:39:19 <pschindl> #info Accepted Blocker, freeipa, ON_QA
18:39:21 <kparal> the same thing here
18:39:37 <pschindl> This is covered with openqa, so it will be easier to test.
18:40:20 <pschindl> #info fixed freeipa will be on today's compose and RC. Needs testing.
18:40:29 <pschindl> #topic (1487305) Raspberry Pi 3: run-initial-setup hangs
18:40:31 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487305
18:40:33 <pschindl> #info Accepted Blocker, kernel, ON_QA
18:40:53 <kparal> this got tested by sumantro, I hope with rpi3
18:40:56 <kparal> will check
18:42:27 <kparal> he did
18:42:37 <kparal> I'll close, we can go on
18:43:04 <pschindl> #info sumantrom[m] verified the fix. We can close this one.
18:43:12 <pschindl> #topic (1170803) calls e2fsck on all ext volumes, provides no status indicator, and hangs indefinitely if e2fsck doesn't exit
18:43:13 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170803
18:43:15 <pschindl> #info Accepted Blocker, python-blivet, ON_QA
18:43:34 <kparal> there are so many people complaining about this one but no one wants to test the fix
18:43:53 <kparal> if you happen to have 1PB partition or something, please help out
18:44:08 <kparal> otherwise we'll just close and assume it's fixed
18:45:02 <pschindl> #info The fix for this bug still needs testing from someone who can reproduce the bug.
18:45:09 <nirik> can Fedora buy some 1PB drives for people? ;)
18:45:14 <pschindl> #topic (1491508) FreeIPA server deployment fails with SELinux in enforcing mode, despite no obvious denials
18:45:16 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491508
18:45:18 <pschindl> #info Accepted Blocker, selinux-policy, POST
18:45:28 <kparal> this one is probably still broken
18:45:32 <kparal> but that only affects server
18:45:57 <kparal> so not our current concern
18:46:10 <nirik> look like they have fixes...
18:46:13 <nirik> but yeah
18:47:20 <pschindl> #info This bug will probably block just modular server.
18:47:28 <pschindl> #topic (1475570) Rescue mode fails while trying to access LVM volumes from existing install
18:47:30 <pschindl> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475570
18:47:32 <pschindl> #info Accepted Blocker, systemd, VERIFIED
18:48:04 <kparal> we'll test with latest compose, just to be sure
18:48:42 <kparal> I tested my own boot.iso
18:48:42 <pschindl> #info We are waiting for update, but the build should appear on RC and is verified to work.
18:48:48 <pschindl> And that's it :)
18:49:01 <pschindl> Nothing else on the list.
18:49:06 <kparal> jkurik: you take over
18:49:17 <jkurik> ok
18:49:18 <pschindl> So wake up
18:49:24 <kparal> the overall QA answer is "not ready", I believe :)
18:49:34 <jkurik> pschindl: thanks for the blocker review
18:49:45 <jkurik> #topic Test Matrices coverage
18:49:50 <jkurik> #info As there is no RC yet, Test matrices are not ready
18:49:55 <jkurik> #info We are skipping the Test Matrices coverage check
18:50:02 <jkurik> #topic Go/No-Go decision
18:50:13 <jkurik> < QE, FESCo, RelEng - we need you opinion :)
18:50:27 <nirik> Sadly no go.
18:50:31 <pschindl> QE is no go
18:50:38 <jkurik> I am no-go as well
18:50:41 <sgallagh> no go
18:50:50 <jkurik> mboddu: what about releng ?
18:50:53 <kparal> there's still a slight chance that mkolman will fix anaconda right now and we can create a new RC over night
18:50:56 * nirik isn't sure if we now slip final a week also or what
18:51:04 <mboddu> no go
18:51:04 <kparal> but I guess it's not very likely
18:51:12 <mkolman> kparal: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22005667
18:51:12 <jkurik> nirik: that is what we need to agree
18:51:30 <mkolman> the build should finish in a few minutes :)
18:51:36 <kparal> ok, so mkolman is the superman here
18:51:37 <nirik> ha
18:51:42 * kparal checks blockers again
18:51:48 <jkurik> #agreed Due to missing RC for the F27 Beta release and presence of blocker bugs, the decision is “No Go”.
18:51:55 <nirik> kparal: do we have all blockers actally addressed by some update?
18:51:58 * mkolman notes he is actually the bicycle-repair-man
18:52:02 <jkurik> mattdm: are you here ?
18:52:15 <pschindl> The question is what with server bugs?
18:52:44 <mattdm> jkurik: yep!
18:53:11 <jkurik> mattdm: we need to agree on the slip. you were proposing to slip for one day only (if possible)
18:53:15 <pschindl> one of freeipa bugs isn't probably fixed (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491508)
18:53:17 <nirik> I guess we do... so yeah, we could fire an rc2, but I am not sure heroics are good here.
18:53:35 <mattdm> jkurik: that wasn't my proposal; I think kparal suggested that?
18:53:37 <nirik> pschindl: but that should be non blocking now.
18:53:48 <frantisekz> pschinld: I guess we are not going to care about FreeIPA if Server is not blocking
18:53:49 <jkurik> mattdm: ah, ok
18:53:49 <kparal> so, we're only missing the anaconda and the rpi3 kernel fix
18:53:58 <kparal> both of them are available or almost available
18:54:01 <frantisekz> non modular Server to be correct
18:54:17 <kparal> if you can start a new RC shortly with both those builds, we could test it tomorrow
18:54:28 <mattdm> We're pushing ourselves pretty crazily hard here anyway. I'd rather slip a whole week and burn out people less if it comes to that.
18:54:45 * kparal just stating options
18:54:59 <mattdm> yeah.
18:55:07 <frantisekz> I am not a big fan of slipping one week, we have a day off next Thursday here in Czech Republic :)
18:55:08 * sumantrom[m] sides with kparal
18:55:08 <jkurik> proposed #agreed The Beta release slips for one week. The one week slip is going to affect the Final GA as well.
18:55:17 <nirik> that also doesn't give much time to retest things with the new kernel...
18:55:20 <mattdm> kparal: which is the rpi thing?
18:55:29 <kparal> mattdm: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494138
18:55:47 <kparal> I updated blockerbugs page, you can refresh
18:55:51 <kparal> https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/27/beta/buglist
18:56:00 <nirik> jkurik: so, that means we slip from the sooner date to the rain date? or we push both those milestones out a week?
18:56:01 <mattdm> that's becoming increasingly strategically important
18:56:03 <kparal> ignore "[Modular Server]" entries for the moment
18:56:14 <mattdm> nirik: both out a week.
18:56:23 <mattdm> we're gonna need that rain date still :)
18:56:43 <kparal> it's true that for a new kernel a day of testing is not awesome
18:56:49 <mkolman> update with #1491119 fix: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3184b77d1e
18:56:55 <jkurik> nirik: we push both milestones; we already used the "rain day feature"
18:57:32 <kparal> mkolman: thanks for very fast response
18:57:33 <nirik> alright, so 31st or 7th.
18:57:53 <mkolman> kparal: I'm glad I can help :)
18:57:54 <nirik> would be nice to have a halloween release again... but anyhow.
18:58:00 <kparal> as frantisekz already said, just noting that next thursday is a state holiday in CZ
18:58:34 <mkolman> I guess that also make is more likely people will be on PTO on Friday
18:58:39 <mkolman> *makes
18:58:47 <kparal> yeah, but that's after next go/nogo :)
18:58:55 <kparal> so shouldn't matter that much
18:59:00 <mkolman> good point
18:59:00 <langdon> mattdm & jkurik i think you are saying opposite things.. you may want to use actual dates vs one week/rain date
18:59:03 <nirik> I'm for just slipping a week and doing things right... but we shouldn't be complacient. I think we should fire rc2 today anyhow to get it more testing...
18:59:07 <jkurik> proposed #agreed The Beta release slips for one week. The one week slip is going to affect the Final GA where the target date is going to move to 2017-10-31
18:59:19 <kparal> nirik: sounds good
18:59:23 <mattdm> kparal: Let's get it all signed off before the holiday :)
18:59:30 <mattdm> langdon: I think I said the same thing.
18:59:41 <jkurik> nirik, langdon: is it better ^^^ (the proposal)
19:00:07 <nirik> how about: all futher milestones will move out 1 week also
19:00:11 <kparal> pschindl: we'll request RC2 with those kernel and anaconda builds on top of RC1
19:00:18 <langdon> ok.. just checking.. i am not sure.. and don't have a horse in this race :) .. so as long as you (jkurik, mattdm and nirik) are on the same page ...
19:00:18 <jkurik> nirik: sound good
19:00:26 <mattdm> I think so :)
19:00:32 <nirik> final freeze 17th, scheduled final release 31st, raid date nov 7th
19:00:54 <nirik> rain. sheesh. ;) everyone add disks to your storage pool on the 7th!
19:00:54 <jkurik> proposed #agreed The Beta release slips for one week. All futher milestones will move out 1 week also.
19:00:55 <langdon> nirik: is that when you kill the bugs?
19:01:24 <nirik> they check in, but they don't check out!
19:01:30 <langdon> nirik: lol
19:01:32 <nirik> ack
19:01:49 <jkurik> more acks please ?
19:01:54 <frantisekz> ack
19:02:01 <sumantrom[m]> ack
19:02:09 <kparal> ack
19:02:16 <jkurik> #agreed The Beta release slips for one week. All futher milestones will move out 1 week also.
19:02:23 <nirik> langdon: soon we can just merge the modular server schedule back in. ;)
19:02:24 <jkurik> #action jkurik to publish the Go/No-Go result
19:02:26 * nirik runs
19:02:51 <jkurik> pschindl, kparal: are you willing to join the go/no-go the next week (at the same time) ?
19:02:54 <langdon> jkurik: would you mind pinging me when you update the schedule? cause i am gonna want to check it against my proposed schedule for modular server
19:03:03 <langdon> nirik: nah.. we are gonna release first :)
19:03:06 <jkurik> langdon: ok
19:03:09 <nirik> :)
19:03:43 <kparal> jkurik: I can't promise it right now, but I'll figure it out and let you know. as a back up tflink can do it, I believe
19:04:01 <jkurik> #action jkurik to update the F27 schedule and ping langdon to check proposal of the Modular Server schedule
19:04:12 <jkurik> kparal: ok, thanks
19:04:21 <langdon> jkurik: thanks.. i probably will catch it anyway.. but  "interrupt driven"
19:04:49 <jkurik> #action jkurik to organize third round of Go/No-Go meeting for F27 Beta on Thursday, September 28th at 17:00UTC
19:04:55 <jkurik> #topic Open floor
19:04:59 <jkurik> anything else ?
19:06:07 <kparal> nothing from me
19:06:11 <jkurik> I am going to close the meeting in 1 minute
19:07:03 <mattdm> thanks jkurik!
19:07:14 <frantisekz> thanks; bye all!
19:07:19 <jkurik> #endmeeting