17:00:25 <bcotton> #startmeeting F29 Beta Go/No-Go meeting
17:00:25 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 20 17:00:25 2018 UTC.
17:00:25 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:00:25 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:25 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f29_beta_go/no-go_meeting'
17:00:27 <bcotton> #meetingname F29-Beta-Go_No_Go-meeting
17:00:27 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f29-beta-go_no_go-meeting'
17:00:36 <bcotton> #topic Roll Call
17:00:39 <bcotton> .hello2
17:00:40 <contyk> .hello psabata
17:00:44 <asamalik> .hello2
17:00:45 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
17:00:48 <zodbot> contyk: psabata 'Petr Šabata' <psabata@redhat.com>
17:00:51 <zodbot> asamalik: asamalik 'Adam Samalik' <asamalik@redhat.com>
17:00:54 <frantisekz> .hello2
17:01:06 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
17:01:09 * asamalik waves instead of yawning (looks at contyk)
17:01:10 <mboddu> .hello mohanboddu
17:01:18 <coremodule> .hello2
17:01:24 <zodbot> mboddu: mohanboddu 'Mohan Boddu' <mboddu@bhujji.com>
17:01:27 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
17:02:00 * satellit listening
17:02:07 <sgallagh> .hello2
17:02:09 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:02:19 <mattdm> .hello2
17:02:20 <zodbot> mattdm: mattdm 'Matthew Miller' <mattdm@mattdm.org>
17:02:24 <x3mboy> .hello2
17:02:25 <zodbot> x3mboy: x3mboy 'Eduard Lucena' <eduardlucena@gmail.com>
17:02:31 <adamw> .hello adamwill
17:02:32 <zodbot> adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' <awilliam@redhat.com>
17:03:32 <bcotton> okay, looks like we have a good crowd. let's do this
17:03:40 <bcotton> #topic Purpose of this meeting
17:03:48 <bcotton> #info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F29 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
17:03:49 <bcotton> #info This is determined in a few ways:
17:03:56 <bcotton> #info 1. No remaining blocker bugs
17:03:57 <bcotton> #info 2. Release candidate compose is available
17:03:57 <nirik> morning
17:03:59 <bcotton> #info 3. Test matrices for Beta are fully completed
17:04:08 <bcotton> #link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/29/beta/buglist
17:04:10 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_29_Test_Results
17:04:17 <lruzicka> .hello lruzicka
17:04:20 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
17:04:26 <bcotton> #topic Current Status -- blocker bugs
17:04:31 <bcotton> #link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/29/beta/buglist
17:04:36 <bcotton> for good measure
17:05:11 <bcotton> okay, time for another Blocker Review lightning round?
17:05:17 * contyk nods
17:05:34 <bcotton> #info 2 Proposed Blockers
17:05:35 <bcotton> #info 2 Accepted Blockers
17:05:44 <bcotton> #topic (1630134) gnome-shell stuck when I move and drop favorite icon
17:05:46 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1630134
17:05:47 <bcotton> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, VERIFIED
17:05:53 <bcotton> #chair adamw
17:05:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw bcotton
17:06:20 <adamw> welp, i seem to have just discovered a shell crasher...
17:06:22 <adamw> this is actually fixed in RC5
17:06:24 <adamw> but we should still discuss whether it's a blocker, as if it is, we cannot release rc4
17:06:32 <sgallagh> The effect of this one is that if it’s ... yeah
17:06:54 <bcotton> #info BZ 1630134 is fixed in RC5
17:06:58 * nirik leans toward -1 blocker +1 FE
17:07:08 <cmurf> -1 blocker +1 FE
17:07:19 <frantisekz> -1 blocker +1 FE
17:07:30 <adamw> it's really pretty bad, but maybe just -1
17:07:33 <cmurf> it's a beta, and this is an adorble bug you'd almost expect to get in a beta
17:07:35 <adamw> so -1/+1 also
17:07:36 <sgallagh> I’m slightly +1 blocker, honestly.
17:07:52 <cmurf> meh i'll get fixed next week in an update :P
17:07:55 <sgallagh> But I’m not going to argue loudly.
17:07:59 <cmurf> s/i'll/it'll
17:08:11 * sgallagh puts the knife back down
17:08:12 <lruzicka> -1 blocker, +1 fe
17:08:17 * nirik has never ever done the action that causes this.. :)
17:08:18 <cmurf> haha
17:08:22 <contyk> no opinion
17:08:26 <lruzicka> that is the same bug that Petr has found
17:08:42 <adamw> i never actually do this either
17:08:46 <adamw> but some people obviously do
17:08:48 <cmurf> me3
17:08:50 <sgallagh> My main thought is that this is the sort of action that mostly happens on a new install
17:08:59 <sgallagh> Once people have stuff set up, it’s infrequent
17:09:11 <cmurf> common bugs it
17:09:26 <adamw> don't need to if we release rc5
17:09:26 <mboddu> -1 Blocker, +1 FE
17:09:27 <adamw> anyway
17:09:31 <adamw> bcotton: are you running this or am I?
17:09:32 * mboddu never done that before
17:09:49 <bcotton> adamw i'll run it until i do it wrong and then you push me out of the way?
17:10:02 <adamw> "push", sure
17:10:02 <lruzicka> adamw, we have tried hard to test rc5, why should not we release it?
17:10:04 * adamw borrows sgallagh's knife
17:10:19 <bcotton> so i count +1/-5 on this as a blocker and +6/-0 on FE
17:10:20 <adamw> lruzicka: i'm not saying that, but that part of the meeting is later :)
17:10:41 <sgallagh> I’m driving for the next ten minutes. mattdm has my proxy
17:11:01 <bcotton> proposed #agreed BZ 1630134 is rejected as a Beta Blocker as no blocking criteria have been identified
17:11:18 <contyk> ack
17:11:34 <lruzicka> wait
17:11:37 <bcotton> waiting
17:11:38 <adamw> patch a bit
17:12:01 <cmurf> haha what blocking criteria?
17:12:03 <lruzicka> actually, there is a criteria about the panel ... is not that part of the panel?
17:12:15 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1630134 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a blocker as it does not violate any beta criteria, but it is an easily-encounterable GNOME crasher so accepted as an FE
17:12:24 <bcotton> ack
17:12:28 <adamw> lruzicka: the beta criterion says something like 'cannot crash on startup or be entirely non-functional'
17:12:28 <cmurf> ack
17:12:33 <frantisekz> ack
17:12:34 <adamw> this doesn't meet that, imo
17:12:42 <cmurf> definitely not, it's a cute bug
17:12:49 <adamw> the overview does not crash on startup and it's not 'entirely non-functional', it just has a big bug. :P
17:13:01 <cmurf> a cute big bug
17:13:04 <contyk> cute big bug
17:13:06 <adamw> this would definitely be a *final* blocker, but it's not going to be around long enough for us to care.
17:13:31 <lruzicka> ok, so ... no more objections
17:13:45 <mattdm> sgallagh says he is fine with that
17:13:49 <lruzicka> ack
17:13:50 <adamw> =)
17:14:04 <mboddu> ack
17:14:41 <adamw> #agreed 1630134 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected as a blocker as it does not violate any beta criteria, but it is an easily-encounterable GNOME crasher so accepted as an FE
17:14:56 <bcotton> #topic (1628495) In UEFI mode, Fedora 29 cannot be installed in Safe Graphics Mode
17:14:57 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628495
17:14:59 <bcotton> #info Proposed Blocker, xorg-x11-server, NEW
17:15:44 <cmurf> strictly speaking it's a blocker because it violates a basic criterion, but it also isn't clear how widespread it is
17:15:49 <cmurf> it might only be UEFI
17:16:01 <cmurf> and itmight only be on hardware where NOT using nomodeset works
17:16:12 <cmurf> thereby making nomodeset not necessary
17:16:14 <adamw> i think it's pretty clearly only uefi
17:16:17 <contyk> well, it still violates the criteria
17:16:24 <lruzicka> I have found it on UEFI
17:16:26 <adamw> the fun thing is, it actually doesn't
17:16:35 <adamw> the criterion is quite carefully worded, if you look at it
17:16:35 <cmurf> and even more, ajax says this is not basic graphics, it's pure desperation graphics
17:17:11 <adamw> it says "This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use the generic driver."
17:17:17 <adamw> and the mechanism does indeed work correctly.
17:17:26 <adamw> i.e. it boots with 'nomodeset'.
17:17:37 <adamw> X then does not actually work, but that's not what the criterion says. :P
17:18:02 <cmurf> uhhh
17:18:17 <cmurf> "...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"
17:18:23 <bcotton> adamw: i admire your lawyering
17:18:40 <adamw> it's not just lawyering, that's literally what it's meant to cover, from the last time we went over it
17:18:40 <cmurf> the mechanism doesn't work, the installer nor desktop are launched
17:19:00 <nirik> so, we don't have any more idea how widespread this is?
17:19:01 <cmurf> but I'm still a -1 because it doesn't seem broad enough, more hardware specfic
17:19:09 <lruzicka> that sounds like wording around ... it still cannot be installed using the safe graphics mode
17:19:24 <cmurf> and the only hardware I think we're hitting it on is hardware that works fine without nomodeset
17:19:27 <adamw> nirik: so far we know it affects every UEFI system we've tried it on, and no BIOS ones.
17:19:35 <cmurf> oh ok, didn't know that
17:19:35 <lruzicka> I am not pushing we block on that, it can be workarounded but I believe it breaks the criteria
17:19:43 <adamw> but we have not tried it on any system that would actually *need* it, i.e. one which can't reach a graphical installer without it.
17:19:57 <adamw> lruzicka: as the person who wrote the criteria, i'm telling you, it really is meant to mean what i said.
17:20:01 <lruzicka> adamw, yes, thats right
17:20:08 <cmurf> LOL
17:20:11 <adamw> the criterion is actually really about the boot menu
17:20:24 <nirik> and rc5 has a 'fix' for this? or unclear what the fix is ?
17:20:28 <cmurf> unclear
17:20:30 <adamw> the context is that we wanted to require the boot menu show up, and have the things on it that it's supposed to have on it
17:20:34 <adamw> rc5 does not have a fix.
17:20:46 <cmurf> i've been testing ajax's attempts to fix it and it's confusing why it doesn't work
17:20:46 <adamw> there is a fix, but it's not in rc5.
17:20:50 <lruzicka> ok, so lets not block and put it in the common bugs
17:20:54 <adamw> works fine for me
17:21:03 <contyk> lruzicka: +1
17:21:12 <cmurf> ok so even less hardware that this is  hitting
17:21:14 <lruzicka> those people willing to install it can use the text mode
17:21:14 <adamw> i think you're getting tripped up by gnome, fwiw.
17:21:18 <mboddu> lruzicka: +1
17:21:20 <nirik> I'm inclined to -1 blocker, +1 FE again... for it not clearly affecting cases where we need it to work....
17:21:31 <cmurf> -1 blocker, +1 FE
17:21:38 <adamw> -1 blocker both because it's restricted in impact and doesn't actually violate the criterion
17:21:50 <frantisekz> -1 blocker
17:22:32 <lruzicka> -1 Blocker, +1 FE
17:22:44 <nb> -1 blocker +1 FE
17:22:49 <contyk> same
17:23:02 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1628495 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this seems to be limited in impact and has not yet been demonstrated to render any real system incapable of reaching the installer. also it may not technically violate the criterion, as the boot menu does function as intended. It is accepted as an FE issue as improving the success rate of basic mode would at least possibly be helpful
17:23:06 <bcotton> ack
17:23:17 <frantisekz> ackitty ack
17:23:18 <cmurf> ack
17:23:20 <contyk> ack
17:23:29 <cmurf> frantisekz: oh that's a good one
17:23:38 <mboddu> ack
17:24:30 <lruzicka> ack
17:24:59 <adamw> #agreed 1628495 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this seems to be limited in impact and has not yet been demonstrated to render any real system incapable of reaching the installer. also it may not technically violate the criterion, as the boot menu does function as intended. It is accepted as an FE issue as improving the success rate of basic mode would at least possibly be helpful
17:25:02 <mattdm> \o/
17:25:22 <bcotton> okay, well we've managed to avoid adding any new blockers. let's check in on the existing
17:25:31 <bcotton> #topic (1629378) Trying to start dnfdragora causes an error in dnfdaemon and the program cannot continue
17:25:33 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629378
17:25:34 <bcotton> #info Accepted Blocker, dnfdaemon, VERIFIED
17:26:07 <lruzicka> This is fixed in RC5
17:26:20 <cmurf> super
17:26:30 <bcotton> #info Fixed in RC5
17:27:22 <bcotton> adamw: do we need to do anything to formalize this, or just note it's fixed and move on
17:27:22 <nirik> but not in rc4?
17:27:56 <adamw> it was fixed in rc4 too.
17:28:00 <adamw> er
17:28:02 <adamw> wait
17:28:04 <adamw> let me check that
17:28:27 <adamw> yeah. fixes were in rc4 too.
17:28:33 <mboddu> adamw: I think its fixed in rc4 as well
17:28:34 <bcotton> #undo
17:28:34 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by bcotton at 17:26:30 : Fixed in RC5
17:28:40 <bcotton> #info Fixed in RC4
17:28:55 <adamw> (also i fixed a bonus bug at the same time, just because i'm awesome.)
17:28:56 * sgallagh takes back his proxy from mattdm
17:29:02 <bcotton> adamw++
17:29:42 <x3mboy> adamw++
17:29:44 <zodbot> x3mboy: Karma for adamwill changed to 6 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:29:58 <adamw> woohoo karma fishing
17:30:42 <adamw> bcotton: that's all you need, you can move on
17:30:46 <bcotton> rock
17:30:55 <bcotton> #topic (1629340) PackageKit update crashes at end of transaction with "TransactionItem state is not set: grub2-tools-1:2.02-57.fc29.x86_64"
17:30:56 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629340
17:30:58 <bcotton> #info Accepted Blocker, libdnf, ON_QA
17:31:28 <adamw> also fixed in rc4.
17:31:41 <bcotton> #info Fixed in RC4
17:32:00 <bcotton> okay, so there are no outstanding blocker bugs
17:32:29 <sgallagh> Always good
17:32:30 <bcotton> #topic Current status - Release candidate compose is available
17:32:56 <adamw> hey, we aced this one
17:32:59 <adamw> we have *two*!
17:33:06 <mboddu> adamw: Haha :D
17:33:09 <sgallagh> :-D
17:33:12 <bcotton> we're twice as good!
17:33:14 <mboddu> Now I wonder which one we will pick
17:33:17 <nirik> lets ship em both!
17:33:28 <contyk> mix the contents a little
17:33:35 <lruzicka> lets ship RC4 as Beta and RC5 as final.
17:33:40 <sgallagh> lruzicka++
17:33:41 <zodbot> sgallagh: Karma for lruzicka changed to 2 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:33:41 <frantisekz> :D
17:33:44 <adamw> lruzicka++
17:33:45 <zodbot> adamw: Karma for lruzicka changed to 3 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:33:45 <bcotton> so are there reasons we shouldn't call RC5 our Beta RC?
17:33:47 * adamw goes on vacation
17:33:52 <bcotton> lruzicka++
17:33:53 <zodbot> bcotton: Karma for lruzicka changed to 4 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:33:58 <bcotton> (since everyone else is handing out karma)
17:34:08 <adamw> bcotton: at this point i'd prefer we say we have both RC4 and RC5 as options
17:34:13 * mboddu also goes on vacation, no need to run final rc's :D
17:34:13 <adamw> then go on to test coverage
17:34:18 <bcotton> ok
17:34:21 <adamw> as that's kinda what should help determine which we ship
17:34:26 <bcotton> #info RC4 and RC5 are available as options
17:34:36 <sgallagh> adamw: Can you highlight the differences between them?
17:34:40 <adamw> #info neither has outstanding blockers
17:34:41 <adamw> sure
17:35:20 <adamw> #info RC5 includes a Silverblue installer image, RC4 does not
17:36:13 <contyk> is that the only difference?
17:36:15 <adamw> #info RC5 includes fixes for several GNOME bugs that RC4 does not
17:36:26 <mboddu> #info RC5 fixes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628462, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1631068 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1630134
17:37:15 * contyk votes for RC5
17:37:38 <bcotton> contyk: let's check out the test coverage first (that's the next #topic)
17:37:40 <adamw> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/2GASMQHGCWWGNDG34D3XDB4RSLAZR6UV/ has a list of the bugs fixed
17:37:44 * nirik also is with contyk
17:37:52 <contyk> one of the fixed issues was a proposed blocker today, even
17:37:54 * lruzicka goes kontiki
17:38:02 <adamw> from a quick look, rc5 is not missing any images that rc4 had
17:38:10 <adamw> you can compare https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Fedora_29_Beta_1.5_Download vs. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Fedora_29_Beta_1.4_Download
17:38:41 <adamw> seems like we picked up a couple of s390 cloud base images too
17:38:48 <adamw> so for everyone running on s390 clouds, that'll be great?
17:38:57 <adamw> =)
17:39:03 <nirik> nice
17:39:23 <mattdm> I know the people who put work into that will appreciate it
17:39:24 <mboddu> More the merrier :D
17:39:52 <bcotton> okay, then let's talk test coverage
17:40:05 <bcotton> #topic Current status - Test coverage
17:40:13 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_29_Test_Results
17:40:46 <bcotton> #link https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/29/
17:42:07 <adamw> i'm not seeing anything missing for rc4 and rc5 combined
17:42:26 <adamw> except the 'two release ago' gnome upgrade test which we already know has a problem that we decided isn't beta blocking
17:42:29 <adamw> someone even tested SAS...
17:42:54 <adamw> oh, the AD tests
17:42:57 <adamw> sgallagh, did you do those?
17:43:02 <sgallagh> I did those on 1.1
17:43:16 <sgallagh> We haven't pulled anything in subsequently that would alarm me
17:43:36 <adamw> okay, i think that's reasonable
17:43:58 <adamw> i guess you didn't put them in the matrix as testcase_stats shows they've never been done...could you update that when you get a minute?
17:44:06 <sgallagh> Yeah, will do
17:44:16 <adamw> the only thing that concerns me i guess is we don't seem to have any tests of physical CD media for 1.4 or 1.5
17:44:36 <adamw> i was going to do one while the meeting was going on...only i can't seem to get gnome to see a blank disc to burn to :/
17:44:42 <mattdm> OMG PROPOSAL DROP CD MEDIA
17:44:43 <adamw> (and i managed to crash gnome-shell one time while trying)
17:45:02 <lruzicka> adam, I would have done it but I though that CDs were for final release
17:45:05 <sgallagh> mattdm: haha
17:45:08 <adamw> lruzicka: they're only *required* for final
17:45:13 <adamw> but it's nice to test at least one or two for beta
17:45:33 <adamw> i can live with it if we haven't, though. at least no-one's reported any problems on list or anything.
17:45:42 <lruzicka> adamw, ok ... I will remember that for next time
17:45:45 <adamw> thanks
17:46:03 <adamw> just test, like, the workstation x64 live and server netinst or something like that
17:46:17 <lruzicka> I see
17:46:57 <adamw> ok, that's all i got for test coverage
17:47:00 <adamw> anyone else?
17:47:15 <adamw> oh, i lied
17:47:24 <adamw> i'd say rc5 coverage is sufficient to consider it a reasonable candidate for shipping
17:47:41 <lruzicka> I agree with Adam
17:47:41 <adamw> we got all the workstation tests re-run with it, and quite a lot of other tests too, enough to say there's no reason to believe some weird, unexpected regression showed up
17:47:52 <adamw> thanks a lot for all the work to do that, lruzicka+co
17:48:09 <lruzicka> rather co+lruzicka :D
17:48:27 <sgallagh> lruzicka++
17:49:01 <bcotton> okay, anything else on test coverage or objections to RC5?
17:49:29 <adamw> shall we #info ?
17:49:36 <mattdm> yes!
17:49:49 <mattdm> (that was an enthusiastic ! not a demanding one)
17:50:23 <adamw> #info test coverage between RC4 and RC5 is effectively complete (one upgrade test is from RC3 with a known bug that is rejected as blocker, AD join tests are from RC1, we are happy that these have not changed in RC4/RC5)
17:50:30 * x3mboy is hoping we have at least 1 minute of Open Floor
17:50:35 <bcotton> x3mboy: ack
17:50:44 <adamw> #info RC5 test coverage seems sufficient to be quite confident it has no unexpected regressions compared to RC4
17:50:54 <adamw> x3mboy: anything that will affect the go/no-go decision, before we make it?
17:51:07 <x3mboy> adamw, nope
17:51:10 <adamw> okok
17:51:20 <x3mboy> It's a mktg thing related I want to bring up
17:51:24 <bcotton> last call for objections to RC5 before we do this whole decision thing
17:51:33 <adamw> speak now or forever hold your peace
17:51:43 * lruzicka is shushing
17:51:51 <bcotton> 3
17:51:53 <bcotton> 2
17:51:56 <bcotton> 1
17:52:06 <bcotton> #topic Go/No-Go decision
17:52:07 <bcotton> I will poll each team. Please reply “go” or “no-go”
17:52:10 <bcotton> FESCo
17:52:38 <adamw> maybe 'go rc5' or 'go rc4' or 'no go'?
17:52:45 <bcotton> good call adamw
17:53:02 <sgallagh> Go RC5
17:53:12 <bcotton> Releng
17:54:06 <bcotton> mboddu:
17:54:18 <mboddu> Lets ship RC5
17:54:22 <bcotton> QA
17:54:28 * nirik is good with rc5 also
17:54:58 <lruzicka> Go RC5 (however, adamw will have his last say)
17:55:09 <adamw> it's a team thing!
17:55:18 <adamw> go rc5 (go per qa team policy, rc5 is my opinion)
17:55:20 <contyk> go rc5
17:55:41 <bcotton> well that's 3-0
17:55:43 <bcotton> #agreed Fedora 29 Beta is GO with RC5
17:56:01 <lruzicka> Hoorayyyy and up she rises
17:56:03 <jlanda> thanks & congrats ;)
17:56:08 <adamw> COMPLETELY ON TIME
17:56:10 <bcotton> #info Fedora 29 Beta will release on 2018-09-25
17:56:16 <contyk> \o/
17:56:22 <adamw> anyone who remembers some kind of meeting last week is a filthy traitor
17:56:24 <bcotton> #action bcotton to announce decision
17:56:30 <bcotton> #topic Open floor
17:56:31 <x3mboy> yay!!!!
17:56:38 <bcotton> x3mboy, the floor is yours
17:56:42 <bcotton> #chair x3mboy
17:56:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw bcotton x3mboy
17:56:43 <mattdm> adamw++
17:56:57 <nirik> ha.
17:57:20 <x3mboy> Hi, I know is painful, I've being done this for 3 releases, but please, we need the Talking Point
17:57:27 <x3mboy> Points*
17:57:35 <x3mboy> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_talking_points
17:57:40 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_talking_points
17:57:48 * mboddu starts working on rc5 release
17:58:00 <mattdm> mboddu++
17:58:10 <mattdm> x3mboy++
17:58:10 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for x3mboy changed to 14 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:58:11 <x3mboy> This will help our ambassadors, Advocates and the Marketing team to promote the new release
17:58:11 <adamw> x3mboy++
17:58:12 <zodbot> adamw: Karma for x3mboy changed to 15 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:58:27 <mattdm> bcotton: can you help x3mboy badger the various teams?
17:58:36 <bcotton> mattdm: you got it
17:58:52 <bcotton> bt0 is also working on an annoyance campaign with them
17:58:52 <mattdm> bcotton++
17:58:59 <mboddu> x3mboy++
17:58:59 <zodbot> mboddu: Karma for x3mboy changed to 16 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:59:04 <x3mboy> bt0 have been tryng to reach the teams by pagure
17:59:23 <x3mboy> Hopefully we can have some to work on the Beta Release Announcement
17:59:25 <adamw> x3mboy: i'd poke mailing lists and individuals on irc, if it was me
17:59:40 <x3mboy> adamw, we did that
17:59:46 <x3mboy> Also infiltrating the meetings
17:59:46 <sgallagh> x3mboy: Server doesn't have a lot to report this release.
17:59:53 <x3mboy> It's not easy
17:59:54 <x3mboy> But ok
18:00:01 <sgallagh> Not much in the way of flashy updates, but I'll see if the Cockpit folks can provide some highlights
18:00:03 <x3mboy> sgallagh,good to know
18:00:07 <lruzicka> modularity is new on WS
18:00:18 <contyk> true
18:00:20 <adamw> sgallagh: we have a whole new motd mechanism!
18:00:23 <adamw> that nearly works!
18:00:30 <x3mboy> lruzicka, yes, that is one of the biggest point this release
18:00:33 * adamw dies of excitement
18:00:37 <contyk> lruzicka: but we don't have any explicit support in the gui tooling yet
18:00:46 <contyk> it just doesn't explode anymore
18:00:51 <lruzicka> contyk, no ... just CLI
18:00:52 <sgallagh> adamw: I need to file a BZ, but the fix for the motd AVC broke the /etc/issue display :-P
18:00:54 <bcotton> RIP adamw
18:01:35 <x3mboy> eom
18:01:47 <bcotton> thanks x3mboy
18:02:14 <bcotton> anyone else have a topic or is it time for me to go send some emails?
18:03:30 <bcotton> last call
18:03:37 <adamw> sgallagh: ...har.
18:03:57 <bcotton> okay, thank you everyone for your hard work. i'll see you again when it's time for final!
18:04:14 <x3mboy> Wooohoooooo!!!!!!!!
18:04:16 <adamw> thanks bcotton
18:04:18 <bcotton> #endmeeting