17:00:33 <jreznik> #startmeeting F20 Final Go/No-Go meeting
17:00:33 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Dec 12 17:00:33 2013 UTC.  The chair is jreznik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:33 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:44 <jreznik> #meetingname F20 Final Go/No-Go meeting
17:00:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f20_final_go/no-go_meeting'
17:00:45 <jreznik> #topic Roll Call
17:00:51 * rbergeron is hereeth
17:01:07 * mkrizek is here
17:01:08 * satellit listening and testing RC1.1
17:01:11 * roshi is here
17:01:12 <jreznik> ok, so who's here for some fun?
17:01:14 * danofsatx-dt is present and accounted for, but a non-voting member
17:01:33 <jreznik> let's wait a moment for folks to show in - more people today, better
17:01:39 <jreznik> and hi everyone!
17:01:41 <nirik> hello
17:01:43 * dan408 is here
17:02:13 * Southern_Gentlem 
17:02:30 * kparal lurks
17:02:46 * nirik wonders if someone woke adamw up yet. ;)
17:03:24 <jreznik> he has his own go/no-go in his dreams
17:03:50 * handsome_pirate waves
17:03:50 <kparal> I don't know if we should be so cruel and wake him up. the dream world might be a better place
17:03:56 <handsome_pirate> lol
17:04:06 <roshi> Lol
17:04:08 <nirik> indeed.
17:04:13 <handsome_pirate> Quick, someone plug an ethernet cable into his ear
17:04:27 <jreznik> #topic Purpose of this meeting
17:04:47 <jreznik> #info Purpose of this meeting is to see whether or not F20 Final is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
17:04:48 <jreznik> #info This is determined in a few ways:
17:04:50 <jreznik> #info No remaining blocker bugs
17:04:51 <jreznik> #info Test matrices for Final are fully completed
17:04:53 <jreznik> #info Fedora 20 Final Release Candidate (RC) is available
17:04:54 <jreznik> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/20/final/buglist
17:04:56 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1_Install
17:04:57 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1_Base
17:04:59 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1_Desktop
17:05:07 * jreznik expects we go that RC1 test matrices way...
17:05:27 * satellit also RC1.1 testing
17:05:27 <kparal> we have RC1.1 matrices as well, they are nearly empty
17:06:05 <jreznik> kparal: the agreement earlier was to use RC1, so link is to RC1 but I can link also RC1.1 if you wish
17:06:10 <dan408> lookin good
17:06:38 <kparal> jreznik: ok, I wasn't aware of any agreements
17:06:55 * kparal might stop testing RC1.1 then
17:06:55 <jreznik> ok
17:07:08 <jreznik> let me dig it
17:07:25 <satellit> will transfer results to RC-1 then for DVD i386
17:07:31 <nirik> well, 1.1 is just 1 with some old/duplicate packages removed to allow the dvd to be undersized.
17:08:10 <jreznik> [11:36] <robatino> do i need to make new test pages, or just reuse the existing ones and have people label their 1.1 results accordingly?
17:08:12 <jreznik> [11:37] <adamw> robatino: keep the existing ones
17:08:13 <jreznik> [11:37] <adamw> as long as rc1.1 sanity checks, it's basically identical
17:09:15 <jreznik> #info RC1 test matrices will be used for RC1.1 respin (but labelled accordingly)
17:09:26 <jreznik> #topic Current status
17:10:27 <jreznik> this time we have RC available, it's a combination of RC1 and RC1.1 due to issue with oversized DVD (so only DVDs are RC1.1)
17:11:06 <jreznik> but we also have quite a lot of proposed blockers before we can ack this RC
17:11:11 <roshi> true
17:11:15 <jreznik> see the bug list
17:11:27 <roshi> https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/20/final/buglist
17:12:46 <jreznik> and what's worst - this is probably last time to release F20 this year (and not to slip for a month) as holidays are coming... so please, keep this in mind we're somehow constrained in time
17:13:38 <jreznik> #info RC available - combination of RC1 and RC1.1 due to issue with oversized DVD
17:14:03 <nirik> right
17:14:35 <jreznik> anything else to add to the current status? otherwise I'd ask our nice QA guys if anyone could lead us through proposed blocker bugs (I'll chair you, I promise)
17:15:14 * nirik really does think we might want to have someone sms adamw. ;)
17:15:21 <rbergeron> i can go text him.
17:15:24 <jreznik> for someone it could be a nice christmas present if we slip a week but I expect we don't want to do this :)
17:15:33 * jreznik does not have his number in the phone
17:15:37 <jreznik> rbergeron: thanks
17:15:37 <roshi> I can run the blocker part
17:15:44 <jreznik> roshi: thanks
17:15:56 <jreznik> #chair roshi
17:15:56 <zodbot> Current chairs: jreznik roshi
17:15:57 <nirik> thanks rbergeron
17:16:04 <roshi> just let me get set up real quick
17:16:51 <roshi> someone want to secretarialize?
17:17:00 <kparal> roshi: I'll do
17:17:06 <jreznik> thanks guys
17:17:21 <roshi> sweet, thanks kparal
17:17:24 <roshi> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:17:24 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:17:24 <roshi> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:17:24 <roshi> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:17:25 <roshi> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:17:25 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:17:25 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:17:26 <roshi> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Final_Release_Criteria
17:17:44 <roshi> here's what we have to work with:
17:17:49 <roshi> #info 8 Proposed Blockers
17:17:49 <roshi> #info 10 Accepted Blockers
17:17:49 <roshi> #info 1 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
17:17:49 <roshi> #info 18 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
17:17:57 <roshi> onto proposed blockers!
17:18:02 <nirik> onward!
17:18:11 <roshi> #topic (1021507) DeviceCreateError: ("Can't have overlapping partitions.", 'sda3')
17:18:11 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021507
17:18:11 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:18:32 * nirik reads
17:18:54 <kparal> skip to comment 37 probably
17:19:04 <kparal> before we did not know how to reproduce that
17:19:12 <kparal> then greenlion found a reliable way
17:20:17 <kparal> even though I have no idea whether it is even relevant to other reported crashes in that bug
17:20:29 <greenlion> probably not relevant
17:20:29 <kparal> do we have some anaconda guys here?
17:20:50 <nirik> so this is raid, lvm, resizing, and a partradge in a pear tree?
17:21:02 <greenlion> no resizing
17:21:03 <roshi> they might be able to say how difficult or intrusive a fix will be
17:21:10 <greenlion> just changing size from default one
17:21:12 * kparal asked in #anaconda
17:21:13 <jreznik> kparal: you reproduced it - could you do a summary for us, or greenlion and some comments on impact how often we can see such layout?
17:21:16 <roshi> also, input into how long slip will be if we have slippage
17:21:21 <kparal> bcl: you around?
17:21:26 <nirik> roshi: 3 weeks at least, likely 4
17:21:28 <rbergeron> well, i have hailed the adam -
17:21:30 <roshi> what kind of disks were they?
17:21:39 <bcl> kparal: lurking
17:21:57 <kparal> bcl: can you say something about this bug, comment 37+?
17:22:13 <kparal> I reproduced it in a VM with 3 empty disks, following comment 40 verbatim
17:22:21 <kparal> it's a bit complex setup, lot of changes
17:22:25 <jreznik> roshi: yep, expect 4+ weeks (as the first go/no-go would be right after new year)
17:22:33 <greenlion> such crash probably could be seen in other layouts, but I admit that it is quite complex
17:22:42 <nirik> so, IMHO, this is a pretty complex/corner case, so I would be -1 blocker at this point for it.
17:22:42 <bcl> right, and in those cases I'm pretty stongly against blocking.
17:23:17 <kparal> dlehman: discussing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021507#c37 and further comments
17:23:22 <jreznik> it seems not very common layout, unless it could affect other more common ones
17:23:34 <dlehman> what is this? more new bugs?
17:23:42 <kparal> today's batch
17:23:46 <roshi> I lean -1, due to the uncommon-ness of the setup
17:23:48 <nirik> dlehman: complex custom raid/lvm/kitchen sink. ;)
17:24:26 <kparal> there are two raids distributed over 3 disks
17:24:27 <jreznik> unless dlehman says it could affect less weird stuff, I lean to -1 either
17:25:03 <kparal> dlehman: c40 is the description of the reproducer
17:25:09 <karsten__> Well, I've run into this bug with a single disk
17:25:33 * handsome_pirate wonders how he can lose ssh connection to a vm on his laptop.
17:25:53 <karsten__> PPC though, so still a corner case
17:26:03 <kparal> I'm afraid that traceback might be quite generic. also, please note that abrt duped it into a bug where the error in c0 is completely different
17:26:07 <dlehman> you realize that comment 0, comment 36, comment 37 are all actually different errors
17:26:19 <kparal> yeah, just saying that
17:26:22 <nirik> yeah, this is a pile on...
17:26:58 <handsome_pirate> abrt--
17:27:10 <handsome_pirate> Alas, I must go back to work
17:27:23 <kparal> the only reliably reproducible error from this pile is c37-c42
17:27:34 <adamw> morning
17:27:42 <nirik> well, unless karsten__ has reproducers for the initial report.
17:27:45 <kparal> hello
17:28:02 <roshi> morning
17:28:10 <handsome_pirate> adamw:  Are you coming to us via ethernet cable plugged into your ear?
17:28:33 * nirik hands adamw a big mug of coffee
17:28:59 <roshi> so far the count is -3 vs +0
17:29:06 <adamw> i'm coming to you via the 'woken by a cellphone call from rbergeron' line
17:29:07 * roshi is keeping count for sanity sake
17:29:08 * handsome_pirate just saw notting
17:29:09 <adamw> :P
17:29:30 <adamw> installing two software raids at once is an obvious no.
17:29:31 <jreznik> roshi: if it's for that complex setup yes
17:29:35 <handsome_pirate> roshi:  -1, also
17:29:45 <handsome_pirate> roshi:  So, at this point, we're -1 blocker
17:29:53 <roshi> yeah
17:29:59 <roshi> proposed #agreed 1021507 - RejectedBlocker - While this would be considered a blocker on more common setups, two raids distributed over three disks is too much of a corner case to block final.
17:30:06 <handsome_pirate> ack
17:30:08 <nirik> ack
17:30:12 <kparal> ack
17:30:13 <mkrizek> ack
17:30:14 <jreznik> ack
17:30:28 <adamw> i'd be a bit more worried about kparal's case, but if you can't pin that one...
17:30:33 <roshi> #agreed 1021507 - RejectedBlocker - While this would be considered a blocker on more common setups, two raids distributed over three disks is too much of a corner case to block final.
17:30:34 * rbergeron hands adamw a big hug and 45 more apologies :(
17:30:35 <kparal> adamw: can't
17:30:41 <handsome_pirate> And, I'm going to loose wireless fore a few while I'm on the elevator
17:30:49 <handsome_pirate> See y'all in a few
17:30:49 <roshi> #topic (1033749) NoSuchGroup: 3d-printing
17:30:49 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033749
17:30:50 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, ASSIGNED
17:31:01 * roshi is just going to keep rolling through the list
17:31:23 <adamw> i dunno what happened in the last 5 hours, but this is the one thing i saw last night that looks plausible for blocker
17:32:08 * nirik reads
17:32:21 <nirik> so this is if you start installing from online and continue with dvd?
17:32:35 <roshi> out of curiousity, how common is installing the 3d printing group from the DVD?
17:32:41 <adamw> roshi: you don't have to be installing it
17:33:11 <roshi> I was just curious if people did
17:33:14 <adamw> i think this will happen any  time you change from an installation source that contains everything to one with no package from the 3d printing group on it, or almost every time
17:33:14 <roshi> that's all
17:33:26 <adamw> roshi: i don't think you can
17:33:33 <kparal> you just want to enter software selection dialog and it crashes
17:33:40 <adamw> the reason the bug happens is because it's on the mirrors but not the DVD
17:33:47 <roshi> yeah - that's a nasty crash
17:34:02 <nirik> would this be other groups as well then?
17:34:05 <bcl> it happens when the lists are really different.
17:34:06 <nirik> everything not on the dvd?
17:34:09 <dlehman> kparal: can you guys please separate out the three distinct bugs being reporting in 1021507 so I can track them?
17:34:36 * satellit if no netowrking also or do not upgradechecked?
17:35:01 <bcl> (and my patch fixed it for my testing, switching between 2 sources)
17:35:26 <adamw> well, if networking was off, you wouldn't hit it the same way as it wouldn't be able to get the repos automatically on start
17:35:27 <kparal> dlehman: replied in #anaconda
17:35:30 <jreznik> and it doesn't happen if you do it via inst.repo=nfs: but that's the question how bad it is
17:35:35 <adamw> but if networking was off you couldn't use an NFS source in the first place
17:36:23 <kparal> this is not restricted to nfs, right? should happen over http as well?
17:36:29 <nirik> ah, I see... so this is because it's a optionlist...
17:36:34 <kparal> I can quickly test
17:36:44 <adamw> kparal: if my four hours of sleep are to be trusted,  i think 'yes'
17:36:45 <roshi> thanks kparal
17:37:29 <adamw> so, okay, the basic use case here is 'do a network install and graphically select an ISO-based repo of some kind'
17:37:36 <adamw> that's the realistic thing you're gonna be doing to hit this
17:37:46 * kparal testing over http
17:38:06 <eight> can't the mirrors be fixed in time for tuesday to match the rc1 dvd?
17:38:25 <adamw> eight: it wouldn't be a fix it'd be a nasty bodge
17:38:25 <kparal> and then forever :)
17:38:40 <adamw> and i can't think of a way to do it that doesn't also require us to rebuild the dvds, unfortunately
17:38:44 <adamw> neither can dgilmore
17:38:51 <adamw> the criterion we're looking at is "The installer must be able to use all supported local and remote package and installer sources."
17:38:53 * nirik ponders
17:38:59 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Final_Release_Criteria#Package_and_installer_sources
17:39:01 <kparal> crashes also over http
17:39:11 <roshi> +1
17:39:16 <nirik> yeah, I mean we could remove that optionlist from comps, but thats kinda nasty...
17:39:26 <adamw> i mean, can it? yeah, sure, it can...
17:39:37 <adamw> nirik: the problem then is we should rebuild the images because we poked comps
17:39:47 <nirik> yeah.
17:39:52 <rbergeron> yep.
17:39:55 <roshi> how fast could this be fixed?
17:39:57 <adamw> we could fudge this, but it's kind of ucky
17:40:02 <nirik> could this be fixed in a updates.img?
17:40:10 <adamw> or i can entirely see blocking on it.
17:40:52 <bcl> I'd rather fix it right.
17:40:59 <roshi> how long would it take to fix?
17:41:10 <roshi> if this was teh only blocker, how long?
17:41:27 <adamw> i think bcl said he had a test patch already
17:41:28 <bcl> dunno. it seems similar to the environments so maybe not log.
17:41:30 <bcl> long.
17:41:31 <jreznik> for simple/fast fix we could try less than week fix...
17:41:46 <bcl> adamw: no, I was referring to the patch for env.
17:41:52 <adamw> bcl: oh, right.
17:42:03 <roshi> so, votes?
17:42:16 * nirik sighs. trying to think of a way around.
17:42:19 <adamw> bcl: what would you think about blockeriness? i mean, you can workaround it. sure. it also seems kinda easyish to hit. i dunno.
17:43:00 <adamw> nirik: it's not actually that hard to fudge in purely technical terms - the criterion's vague. i just kinda feel icky doing it, it seems like we ought to fix it.
17:43:09 <nirik> yeah. I know.
17:43:26 <nirik> I'm just trying to think of how many people this would actually affect...
17:43:32 <adamw> but then i also like christmases where i'm sane.
17:43:43 <nirik> have there been any of those? ;)
17:43:49 <adamw> ask my mom
17:43:51 <bcl> yeah, it seems like booting a dvd and switching to network would be a common use case.
17:44:00 <rbergeron> we at least try to make sure that they're not consecutive years of insanity :)
17:44:04 <nirik> well, if you boot the dvd, it defaults to dvd right?
17:44:07 <roshi> this isn't a thing that can be covered in CommonBugs "Just don't switch sources."
17:44:15 <roshi> right?
17:44:15 <bcl> nirik: right
17:44:31 <bcl> you can work around with askmethod as well.
17:44:32 <adamw> nirik: you're fairly unlikely to boot the DVD and then switch to a network source containing the dvd iso.
17:44:34 <nirik> it's only if you boot netinstall, then switch to a local exploded dvd source
17:44:35 <roshi> isn't it going from net to dvd that's the issue?
17:44:36 <adamw> i mean, why would you do that?
17:44:47 <nirik> adamw: hell if I know. ;)
17:45:04 <nirik> bcl: oh, just go direct to your source?
17:45:06 <bcl> roshi: it is switching between sources with different groups.
17:45:17 <adamw> i can't conceive of a circumstance where you'd be using the DVD ISO as a repo where you *wouldn't* usually be booting the ysstems to be installed from netinst or the kernel pair
17:45:18 * kparal tries to boot dvd and switch to closest mirror
17:45:22 * nirik is now leaning to -1... commonbugs and say workarounds.
17:45:50 <adamw> bcl: oh right, askmethod tells it not to configure the repo
17:45:52 <adamw> but then if we'
17:45:57 <nirik> a) dont switch sources, use net, or b) askmethod
17:46:03 <adamw> nirik: a) is not a workaround
17:46:12 <nirik> well, yeah, true...
17:46:12 <kparal> if I boot from DVD and switch to Closest mirror, it works
17:46:19 <adamw> you can't 'not switch sources' if you boot from the netinst with a working internet connection
17:46:22 <nirik> just a 'way that works but doesn't do exactly what you want'
17:46:36 <danofsatx-dt> adamw: I can - I have a disconnected network for security reasons. We use netinst to kick off the install and point it at our local repo, which is exploded DVD
17:46:54 <adamw> danofsatx: that's...um...not contrary to what I said?
17:47:07 <nirik> so, I guess more clear: a) don't switch to a dvd tree, stick with everything, or b) askmethod
17:47:07 <adamw> danofsatx: if you booted your clients from the DVD and then pointed it at an exploded DVD repo, that'd be contrary.
17:47:21 <adamw> or c) repo=nfs:blahblah
17:47:37 <greenlion> does it behave same with lives?
17:47:37 <nirik> yeah, so I feel less bad given the workarounds.
17:47:39 <roshi> point
17:47:51 <adamw> greenlion: you can't switch repos with lives
17:47:54 <roshi> yeah
17:47:57 <greenlion> ah, true
17:48:08 <danofsatx-dt> It's a procedure that was in place before I arrived. I'm converting to PXEboot, so it won't be an issue for me, personally.
17:48:16 <adamw> danofsatx: your case, in fact, will work fine
17:48:41 <adamw> your systems are offline so they won't be able to set up the default repos
17:48:48 <roshi> that case wouldn't be able to get the repos
17:48:52 <roshi> or, what adamw said
17:48:53 <adamw> so anyone doing things dan's way won't hit this, fwiw
17:48:57 <danofsatx-dt> ok, then I misunderstood the bug. I'll be under my rock if y'all need me.
17:49:08 <roshi> so votes?
17:49:23 <nirik> so, I will be -1 then... document and common bugs and fix for next release, if any of us are alive then.
17:49:34 <roshi> I'll revise my +1 since it seems a really obfuscated means of installing
17:49:45 <adamw> i still feel kinda bad about it, but given that you can definitely achieve the goal in several ways and i *think* it's not hugely common to use this 'iso-as-repo' trick interactively, slight -1
17:49:50 <roshi> 2013 already happened nirik - we're all in the afterlife now
17:49:59 <greenlion> -1
17:50:06 <nirik> roshi: nooooo... this is not how I imagined it would be! :)
17:50:09 <mkrizek> -1 blocker given that there's a workaround (inst.repo)
17:50:21 <adamw> roshi: it's not that obfuscated, i don't think, but i do suspect people using it will tend to do it via cmdline or with non-internet-connected hosts, neither of which case should hit the bug
17:50:41 <roshi> nirik: good thing is, you get to decide on your interpretation of where you ended up :P
17:50:42 * satellit-RC1DVD sugar HD install here
17:50:43 <adamw> god christ i didn't even have coffee yet
17:50:49 <adamw> on no account take any notice of anything i'm saying
17:51:02 <nirik> adamw: see, you have good denialbility later. ;)
17:51:13 <dan408> i seens it
17:51:15 <dan408> adamw is a master
17:51:56 <dan408> anyways
17:52:13 <dan408> been lurking, dont think this is worth delaying the release over
17:52:16 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1033749 - RejectedBlocker - This bug has several workarounds available and is not a largely common method of installation and is thus not considered a blocker. Document as CommonBugs.
17:52:20 <nirik> ack
17:52:23 <dan408> ack
17:52:24 <mkrizek> ack
17:52:40 <roshi> #agreed - 1033749 - RejectedBlocker - This bug has several workarounds available and is not a largely common method of installation and is thus not considered a blocker. Document as CommonBugs.
17:52:43 * jreznik does not feel very well about it but ack
17:52:53 <adamw> i am also curious to look into why we didn't know about this earlier
17:53:01 <roshi> for the record, I always count myself as an implicit ack since I wrote it
17:53:01 <adamw> but we can do that later
17:53:07 <roshi> this is true adamw
17:53:09 <adamw> ack
17:53:22 <adamw> is anyone secretaryfying btw?
17:53:22 <roshi> #topic (1038855) in rescue mode, when exiting rescue shell, instead of menu, get "Pane is dead"
17:53:22 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038855
17:53:22 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:53:27 <roshi> kparal: has it
17:53:28 <adamw> oh hell no.
17:53:38 <adamw> -1, next bug.
17:53:42 <greenlion> -1
17:53:42 * nirik reads the next item on the menu
17:53:59 <nirik> -1, ugly, but oh well.
17:54:10 <dan408> -1
17:54:23 <adamw> we clearly don't care about this if we didn't spot it till 12-05
17:54:29 <adamw> if we want to start blocking on it we ought to care.
17:54:31 <jreznik> adamw: Petr hit it, so we knew about it earlier but probably just saw it's modified and forget about it (for the previous one)
17:54:36 <kparal> I proposed it mainly for FE if we slip
17:54:43 <kparal> I'm -1 blocker as well
17:54:50 <adamw> jreznik: oh, right, there was the other bug camouflaging it
17:54:51 <nirik> yeah, +1 FE (hopefully it doesn't matter tho)
17:54:54 <adamw> i hate those
17:54:59 <adamw> +1 FE whatever.
17:55:07 <dan408> +1 fe
17:55:13 <mkrizek> +1 FE
17:55:16 <greenlion> +1 FE
17:55:27 <jreznik> +1 FE
17:55:32 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1038855 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This bug is not considered to block release. A fix will be considered sometime.
17:55:44 <nirik> ack
17:55:47 <dan408> ack
17:55:48 <mkrizek> ack
17:55:48 <greenlion> ack
17:55:49 <nirik> (love the sometime)
17:55:51 <jreznik> ack
17:56:01 * roshi didn't expect no patch, but cool
17:56:06 <roshi> #agreed - 1038855 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException - This bug is not considered to block release. A fix will be considered sometime.
17:56:10 <dan408> on a side note: it'd be nice if someone proposed a change to overhaul rescue mode
17:56:24 <roshi> just don't let your installs need rescued
17:56:26 <roshi> :P
17:56:29 <roshi> </snark>
17:56:32 <dan408> yeah, not holding my breath
17:56:33 <nirik> and if there were people willing to work on implementing those changes. ;)
17:56:53 <dan408> :)
17:56:57 <roshi> #topic (1040716) LVMError: pvcreate failed for /dev/md/00: running lvm pvcreate --dataalignment 1024k /dev/md/00 failed
17:56:57 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040716
17:56:57 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:57:38 <adamw> oh i'll CONSIDER yer fix anytime, mister
17:57:42 <adamw> i'm CONSIDERING yer fix right now
17:57:59 <adamw> er, okay. so yeah, when i hit this i didn't think it was a blocker and i still don't
17:58:00 * pwhalen joins very late
17:58:08 <nirik> -1/+1
17:58:21 <kparal> I could not reproduce it
17:58:22 <bcl> seems like another of the 'did a bunch of things' bugs.
17:58:26 <adamw> if kparal can't reproduce that just makes me more -1
17:58:34 <nirik> bcl: yep.
17:58:38 <roshi> srsly, quit fuzz testing the installer!
17:58:54 <adamw> bcl: it was definitely reproducible for me following my steps, and they are each actually logical things (there's no 'oops i changed my mind' or 'oops i did iit wrong')
17:59:08 <adamw> but it's a very complicated layout and you *can* achieve it, by at least two other methods
17:59:11 <jreznik> roshi: it's not a bad idea to fuzz test installer but not for blockers
17:59:24 <roshi> I was being facetious :)
17:59:27 <bcl> and not this late in the game.
18:00:00 <jreznik> -1
18:00:03 <kparal> I haven't tried to reproduce c0, just c11
18:00:09 <roshi> -1
18:00:14 <mkrizek> -1
18:00:36 <pwhalen> -1
18:01:01 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1040716 - RejectedBlocker - This bug hasn't been reproduced and the same end result can be achieved via two other methods.
18:01:14 <adamw> ack
18:01:16 <mkrizek> ack
18:01:18 <roshi> should that be a common bugs or what? since people might come back asking what the other two methods are...
18:01:18 <dan408> ack
18:01:30 <jreznik> ack
18:01:38 <adamw> please sprinkle commonbugs juice on everything, kparal
18:01:45 <roshi> #agreed - 1040716 - RejectedBlocker - This bug hasn't been reproduced and the same end result can be achieved via two other methods.
18:01:54 <kparal> roger, mass bugzilla update with commonbugs
18:02:05 <roshi> #topic (1040922) Panorama Stitcher (panoramagui) crashes on start if not passed any files
18:02:05 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040922
18:02:05 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, digikam, ON_QA
18:02:30 <adamw> now this on the other hand is arguably harder to fudge, but i'm way happier fudging it
18:03:04 <nirik> -1/+1, can be fixed in update?
18:03:12 <adamw> KDE ships approximately sixty three thousand goddamn ridiculous things in its menus, esp. if installed via DVD. we should probably modify this criterion because i don't think we can toe the line for KDE
18:03:13 <jreznik> well, for me this one is easier to fudge - it's not on live, on DVD install it could go out as update
18:03:15 <dan408> FE?
18:03:48 <adamw> so i'm fine with -1ing this possibly with a #agreed to water down the relevant criterion for KDE, maybe to 'real standalone apps installed via live'
18:03:48 <dan408> if it's fixed upstream seems like a simple fix?
18:03:50 <jreznik> adamw: as we as KDE SIG try to put as many things to DVD but recommend Live as a selection of software we stand behins
18:03:55 <nirik> yeah, even more -1 if it's not on live... there's no way everything in the distro can be tested for menus (unless we had an automated test for it)
18:04:01 <jreznik> dan408: I already built it
18:04:18 <roshi> -1
18:04:20 <adamw> esp. if KDE SIG doesn't believe it wants to back the criterion as written
18:04:20 <dan408> so what's wrong with FEing this?
18:04:23 <dan408> j/w
18:04:29 <adamw> FE, sure, if we were slipping
18:04:32 <nirik> dan408: nothing. sure.
18:04:34 <dan408> k
18:04:37 <dan408> -1
18:04:39 <jreznik> also it's plugin - intended use case is to call it from digikam etc.
18:04:48 <jreznik> that's why this bug happened and it's pretty recent one
18:04:51 <adamw> nirik: it can be tested. it involves adam with a stiff drink, swearing at the KDE developers
18:05:02 <dan408> hah
18:05:11 <adamw> nirik: i started counting the number of options in the KDE control center at one point, but the integer overflowed
18:05:16 <nirik> yeah.
18:05:31 <jreznik> adamw: and many options are hidden in config files :)
18:05:39 <jreznik> many more
18:05:44 <adamw> christ on a bike, you could fly that fucking thing to mars
18:05:56 * jreznik is -1 for the reasons he explained
18:05:57 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1040922 - RejectedBlocker - This bug is only relating to DVD installation and the KDE-SIG recommends Live installation. Criteria to be re-evaluated for F21.
18:06:11 <dan408> ack
18:06:18 <jreznik> but in case of slip, I'm +1 FE and for chaning this criterion to cover live only for KDE
18:06:18 <nirik> ack
18:06:18 <adamw> ack
18:06:20 <mkrizek> ack
18:06:37 <jreznik> (or we have to limit what's on DVD - but that's reason for DVD to throw things there)
18:06:41 <jreznik> ack
18:06:45 <roshi> so how do we want to annotate FE if slip?
18:06:48 <roshi> or do we?
18:06:53 <jreznik> roshi: yes please
18:06:53 <nirik> but hey, f21 may not even have a dvd. ;)
18:07:02 <jreznik> nirik: I hope for :D
18:07:03 <adamw> jreznik: the criteria are flexible based on what the backing teams consider the goal, to some extent.
18:07:04 <roshi> lol
18:07:20 * nirik gets another cup of coffee.
18:07:24 <adamw> jreznik: if KDE's goal is 'live is a polished product, DVD install has all sorts of stuff on it and some of it might not work', we can certainly make the criteria reflect that.
18:07:25 <roshi> #info 1040922 to be considered FE if release slips
18:08:07 <adamw> ah, shit, no-one did HW raid yet?
18:08:21 <roshi> #topic (1040760) Updated build for F20 release notes
18:08:21 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040760
18:08:21 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, fedora-release-notes, ON_QA
18:08:36 <kparal> roshi: there was no #agreed
18:08:40 <roshi> oh
18:08:42 <roshi> yeah
18:08:47 <kparal> triple #undo
18:09:02 <roshi> I think I can just #agree and it'll work, right?
18:09:11 <kparal> the minutes will be wrong
18:09:13 <roshi> #undo
18:09:13 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x1065fe10>
18:09:15 <Viking-Ice> interesting to see the blocker reviews happening on the no go meeting
18:09:15 <roshi> #undo
18:09:15 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x1065f590>
18:09:19 <roshi> #undo
18:09:19 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x1065fd90>
18:09:36 <roshi> #agreed - 1040922 - RejectedBlocker - This bug is only relating to DVD installation and the KDE-SIG recommends Live installation. Criteria to be re-evaluated for F21.
18:09:41 <roshi> #topic (1040760) Updated build for F20 release notes
18:09:41 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040760
18:09:41 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, fedora-release-notes, ON_QA
18:09:49 * randomuser perks up
18:09:52 <nirik> -1/+1
18:09:56 <roshi> Viking-Ice: is this not normal?
18:10:13 <adamw> Viking-Ice: we've done that for the last few releases...
18:10:22 <randomuser> I'm reluctantly +1 FE on this
18:10:26 <adamw> how else can we evaluate 'em?
18:10:39 <adamw> -1. we asked them for final release notes, they gave us something they called final releases notes
18:10:43 <Viking-Ice> I'm aware of that but not this channel ( expectation blocker-review ) anywho
18:10:45 <adamw> you don't get...release note backsies
18:10:51 <Viking-Ice> let's not dwell on the subject
18:11:08 <jreznik> Viking-Ice: for two releases we do it this way and you were involved several times :)
18:11:17 <adamw> especially not if you're going to try and invoke them the day before go/no-go when we should alreday have tested the RC and got to the bar but didn't because we suck.
18:11:32 <roshi> -1
18:12:03 <adamw> +1 FE if we slip for some reason, sure.
18:12:03 <roshi> will only affect DVDs, right?
18:12:15 * randomuser pours a shot of jameson into adamw's coffee
18:12:15 <jreznik> -1/+1 and yes, I expected that previous release notes are that ONE as I talked to guys
18:12:17 <roshi> moar votes?
18:12:19 <Viking-Ice> -1/+1
18:12:34 <adamw> roshi: anywhere the relnotes are static (shipped images, repos i think) but yeah, the online copy can keep getting updated
18:12:54 <randomuser> right, no problem updating the online copy
18:13:15 <adamw> randomuser: i would prefer a shot of coffee at this point
18:13:22 <adamw> yes. in my coffee.
18:13:25 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1040760 - RejectedBlocker - This issue is minor and will only affect static versions of the Release Notes. A fix will be considered if we slip.
18:13:39 <nirik> ack
18:13:39 <randomuser> ack
18:13:42 <Viking-Ice> ack
18:13:48 <roshi> how do we annotate conditional FE? or is that fine?
18:14:09 <nirik> thats fine, IMHO
18:14:10 <adamw> just acceptedfe is fine
18:14:13 <roshi> #agreed - 1040760 - RejectedBlocker - This issue is minor and will only affect static versions of the Release Notes. A fix will be considered if we slip.
18:14:13 <Viking-Ice> we have to accept that as an FE right
18:14:16 <randomuser> fwiw, I was following the blocker process mostly to make sure that the newer version got in the next RC
18:14:17 <nirik> there shouldn't be any need to make it conditional.
18:14:28 <adamw> i mean, if we don't slip, obviously nothing gets into any builds because we don't do any.
18:14:29 <Viking-Ice> right
18:14:34 * nirik nods
18:14:36 <roshi> patch, or are we good?
18:14:44 <Viking-Ice> good I would think
18:14:49 <nirik> good for me
18:14:55 <roshi> kk, moving on
18:14:57 <roshi> #topic (1008965) mouse cursor sometimes disappears on login
18:14:57 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008965
18:14:57 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-desktop, ASSIGNED
18:16:00 <adamw> i haven't seen this since the fix went in
18:16:06 <adamw> i asked around on IRC and no-one else seems to have
18:16:18 <adamw> so i think the guy who re-opened this has either some weird corner case or some other bug entirely
18:16:32 <adamw> unless people here have seen this bug since the fix went into GNOME...i'm -1
18:16:37 <Viking-Ice> -/-+
18:16:43 <Viking-Ice> -/-
18:16:45 <Viking-Ice> frack
18:16:46 <nirik> -1
18:16:52 <Viking-Ice> 1-/-1
18:17:09 <jreznik> Viking-Ice: you have last try!
18:17:16 <Viking-Ice> -1/-1
18:17:19 <Viking-Ice> lol
18:17:21 <jreznik> -1/-1
18:17:26 <roshi> -1
18:17:59 <kparal> -1
18:18:10 * rbergeron will throw in her -1 as well
18:18:22 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1008965 - RejectedBlocker - This bug hasn't been seen by a preponderance of users and there are known workarounds from when the bug was first proposed.
18:18:25 <rbergeron> (we lived with it for a while anyway it seems)
18:18:37 <nirik> ack
18:18:47 <adamw> ack
18:18:54 <rbergeron> ack
18:18:55 <Viking-Ice> ack
18:18:57 <roshi> #agreed - 1008965 - RejectedBlocker - This bug hasn't been seen by a preponderance of users and there are known workarounds from when the bug was first proposed.
18:19:07 <roshi> last one folks
18:19:19 <roshi> #topic (1021749) Review Request: php-symfony - PHP framework for web projects
18:19:19 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021749
18:19:19 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, Package Review, ON_QA
18:19:35 <nirik> -1/+1
18:19:55 <adamw> oh, this is left on from the previous meeting
18:19:57 <adamw> it's in RC1 anyway
18:19:58 <Viking-Ice> rogjt
18:20:01 <Viking-Ice> right
18:20:07 <adamw> just handwave it and move on, no point wasting time
18:20:10 <roshi> so, -1 blocker
18:20:11 <jreznik> yep
18:20:12 <Viking-Ice> yep
18:20:13 <jreznik> -1
18:20:29 <adamw> i don't even remember what we were gonna do after we punted, anyhow, -1
18:20:38 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1008965 - RejectedBlocker - The fix for this is already in RC1. Nothing to see here.
18:20:43 <Viking-Ice> ack
18:20:45 <adamw> make sure it doesn't fall off acceptedFE list though
18:20:48 <adamw> ack
18:20:51 <nirik> ack
18:20:53 <rbergeron> ack.
18:20:57 <roshi> #agreed - 1008965 - RejectedBlocker - The fix for this is already in RC1. Nothing to see here.
18:21:04 <roshi> onto proposed FE?
18:21:19 <kparal> no, accepted blockers, I think
18:21:19 <roshi> or do accepted blockers?
18:21:19 <Viking-Ice> the one
18:21:25 <Viking-Ice> FE+
18:21:28 <kparal> expect those that are verified
18:21:41 <adamw> i think for go/no-go purposes all we need is proposed blockers
18:21:46 <kparal> there's no point in FE if we don't slip
18:21:49 <adamw> we can do another meeting for proposed FE if we slip
18:21:49 <jreznik> yep
18:21:50 <roshi> ok
18:22:03 <Viking-Ice> more like we will if we slip
18:22:21 <roshi> well, we only have three that aren't VERIFIED
18:22:23 <roshi> #topic (1000891) DVD is oversized (larger than 4.7 GB)
18:22:23 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000891
18:22:23 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, distribution, NEW
18:22:29 <adamw> fine with RC1.1, right?
18:22:32 <nirik> 1.1 was made to address this.
18:22:33 <adamw> someone set it to VERIFIED
18:23:01 <kparal> I can set it. has somebody verified it? :)
18:23:06 <nirik> Length: 4679794688 (4.4G) [application/octet-stream]
18:23:22 <adamw> sure, dgilmore and robatino
18:23:24 <robatino> i'll do it and report the reduced size
18:23:36 <kparal> robatino: thanks
18:23:46 <eight> wow, 0.3?  should add some more to the dvd then ;)
18:23:48 <roshi> #info 1000891 has already been fixed as of RC1.1 - just needed updated
18:24:07 <roshi> anything else on this one?
18:24:25 * roshi moves on
18:24:27 <roshi> #topic (1026860) lvm2: services specified with SYSTEMD_WANTS are not started for some LVM volumes
18:24:27 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026860
18:24:27 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, lvm2, MODIFIED
18:24:27 <adamw> next bug
18:24:33 <roshi> too slow
18:24:40 <adamw> heh
18:24:56 <adamw> so this is just the one we decided not to take the harder fix for
18:25:02 <adamw> we have the systemd workaround in RC1
18:25:45 <Viking-Ice> somehow we forgot to to make note of that in the bug
18:26:09 <adamw> .fire someone
18:26:09 <zodbot> adamw fires someone
18:26:23 <roshi> so the fix is in?
18:26:34 <jreznik> and with that fix it was confirmed to work
18:26:50 <adamw> if someone confirms it with RC1 that'd be nice. did they? i didn't look
18:27:05 <roshi> #info the fix for 1026860 is in RC1 and is confirmed to work
18:27:45 <kparal> I'll remove the blocker nomination then
18:27:54 <roshi> thanks
18:28:00 <roshi> last one not VERIFIED
18:28:02 <roshi> #topic (1035536) Final spin-kickstarts build required for Fedora 20 GA
18:28:02 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1035536
18:28:02 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, spin-kickstarts, ON_QA
18:28:47 <adamw> well, we built a package and i listed it for final rc1
18:28:54 <roshi> last comment says it's done
18:29:01 <adamw> i haven't actually triple checked that it's correct
18:29:29 <roshi> #info 1035536 seems to be done.
18:29:31 <adamw> but i can do if you give me 5 seconds
18:29:34 <roshi> sure
18:29:48 * roshi will #undo if it isn't correct
18:30:24 <Viking-Ice> we also are missing the selinux issue we punted right 1040444
18:30:29 <Viking-Ice> if I'm not mistaken
18:31:00 <nirik> yeah, should circle back and check that.
18:31:03 <adamw> huh, wonder why that hasn't come up
18:31:10 <adamw> anyway, i didn't see it in rc1 testing, did anyone?
18:31:15 <kparal> Viking-Ice: I removed the nomination because it doesn't occur with RC1
18:31:31 <roshi> I didn't see it anywhere
18:31:34 * nirik didn't see any denials here.
18:31:35 <Viking-Ice> what why not just deal with it on the meeting
18:31:35 <roshi> ok
18:32:16 <Viking-Ice> kparal, if you remove proposals they fall of the radar bad habit
18:32:32 <kparal> I verified it's not present
18:32:35 <adamw> yeah, probably would've been better to leave it on, but no harm done
18:32:36 <Viking-Ice> ( think regressions between development releases )
18:32:48 <roshi> point
18:32:50 <adamw> i just verified spin-kickstarts, looks fine
18:32:58 <roshi> can you un-nominate things you nominate?
18:33:01 <jreznik> yeah, I'd still prefer to have it on list even it was invalid one
18:33:04 <roshi> good to hear
18:33:14 <mclasen> Viking-Ice: you cant go through all of bugzilla in the meeting, after all...
18:33:21 <roshi> well, that's all the blockers, proposed and otherwise
18:33:37 <jreznik> mclasen: we try to :)
18:33:45 <roshi> and by my count, all the ones that aren't listed verified are accounted for with fixes
18:33:47 <Viking-Ice> mclasen, procedures
18:34:09 <roshi> so, I think all the blockers are handled - unless I'm understanding wrong
18:34:19 <Viking-Ice> mclasen, they are in place for a reason
18:34:30 <adamw> i don't think we missed any
18:34:43 <roshi> so, from a blocker standpoint...
18:34:44 <Viking-Ice> we have covered all afaik spot
18:34:45 <jreznik> the list seems to be cleared!
18:34:47 <roshi> are we a go?
18:34:55 * roshi doesn't feel like that can be right
18:34:56 <jreznik> roshi: not yet
18:35:01 <adamw> test coverage
18:35:05 <roshi> from a blocker standpoint is all
18:35:06 <roshi> as in
18:35:11 <roshi> blockers are the thing stopping the go
18:35:23 <adamw> it looks like there are now no outstanding unaddressed blockers, yes.
18:35:28 <roshi> ok
18:35:34 <roshi> that's all I was saying
18:35:36 <kparal> that deserves an #indo
18:35:41 <kparal> even #info
18:35:51 <jreznik> kparal: working on it
18:35:53 <roshi> #info all blockers for F20 Final are addressed
18:35:59 <kparal> yay
18:36:08 <roshi> #indo All blockers for F20 Final are addressed
18:36:11 <jreznik> roshi: well, I wanted it in the new topic, but ok :)
18:36:12 <Viking-Ice> blocker martial arts formerly known as indo
18:36:15 <roshi> just for you, kparal
18:36:25 <kparal> thank you
18:36:39 <roshi> sorry jreznik, you can have the meeting back now
18:36:43 <jreznik> so I'm not going to undo it, especially as kparal is now happy :)
18:36:59 <jreznik> #topic Test matrices coverage
18:37:34 <adamw> so we still have a few gaps
18:37:39 <adamw> i'm running a hardware RAID install right now
18:37:46 <jreznik> pwhalen is on ARM
18:38:08 <adamw> iscsi was done at tc4, might be nice to check it if someone who has a non-problematic iscsi target is around
18:38:12 <kparal> let's provide the link
18:38:14 <kparal> links
18:38:19 * nirik ran Xfce and cloud last night, a bunch of 32bit rc 1.1 dvd's today
18:38:25 <danofsatx-dt> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1.1_Desktop#Release-blocking_desktops:_x86_.2F_x86_64
18:38:26 <satellit> litd-USB of i386 DVD RC1.1 work as installs to HD
18:38:28 <kparal> we have RC1 and RC1.1 matrices
18:38:33 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1_Install
18:38:34 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1_Base
18:38:36 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1_Desktop
18:38:49 <kparal> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1.1_Install
18:38:50 <adamw> somehow we forgot to check updates for the desktop live, but it's been fine throughout final and the packages didn't change between tc5 and rc1
18:38:51 <danofsatx-dt> whoops, disregard me....back under my rock
18:38:57 <adamw> so seems unlikely it's magically broken
18:39:25 <nirik> did anyone get secure boot recently?
18:39:40 <kparal> hm, at Beta I think
18:39:44 <kparal> I can test it now
18:39:49 <adamw> i did desktop_menus for desktop at TC5 and it was fine, and we haven't changed any gnome apps between then and now and hell if i'm doing it all again
18:39:54 <adamw> yeah, SB test would be nice
18:40:06 <adamw> libreoffice still works, i checked that
18:40:39 <adamw> (he said, surreptitiously checking it in the background)
18:40:40 <Viking-Ice> well I experienced the shim failure update but know have shim-0.7-1 and it works fine here
18:40:49 * kparal is running SB install
18:41:06 <adamw> so let's do the thing where we drag out the meeting while we check the last few boxes
18:41:28 * adamw runs random gnome apps while he waits for the hwraid install. will yell if anything breaks.
18:41:51 * Viking-Ice performs an Egyptian dance on the desk at the office
18:42:26 * jreznik will silent yelling adamw!
18:42:49 <rbergeron> pics or it didn't happen, viking_ice ;)
18:42:57 * nirik pushes f18/f19 updates.
18:43:48 <satellit> rc 1.1 KDE install works i386 to HD
18:44:39 <adamw> rbergeron: nonononono. gifs or it didn't happen
18:45:08 <adamw> anyone around who can do iscsi?
18:45:14 <rbergeron> adamw: animated? ;)
18:45:30 <kparal> SB install works well. tested from netinst on optical disk
18:46:21 <adamw> whee
18:49:38 * satellit doing a yum install @sugar-desktop sugar-runner to RC1.1 KDE HD install atm
18:49:53 <adamw> install from physical 64-bit netinst to hw raid works
18:50:29 <jreznik> good to hear
18:51:26 <nirik> so it be clear then, are we planning on shipping just the 32bit dvd from rc 1.1, and everything else from 1?
18:51:52 <adamw> i think we should ship at least both dvds from rc1
18:51:54 <adamw> er rc1.1
18:51:56 <adamw> for consistency
18:52:02 <adamw> lives etc from rc1
18:52:12 <adamw> netinst...eh, they should be identical really. rc1.1 i guess
18:52:31 <kparal> adamw: the Lives are identical
18:52:40 * jreznik agrees with adamw
18:52:46 <kparal> netinst images have different checksum
18:52:47 <nirik> ok, so the dvd's will have slightly different Fedora/ than the tree... I guess it doesn't matter...
18:53:09 <adamw> nirik: how do you mean?
18:53:10 <robatino> everything under Images/, Live/ and Spins/ is identical
18:53:30 <adamw> robatino: that's because they weren't built for RC1.1, they were copied from RC1 :)
18:53:38 <adamw> what's in the RC1.1 dir is what we'd ship, i think.
18:54:10 <nirik> adamw: the rc1 and rc1.1 Packages/ dir's are the same... but the dvd's don't have those old libreoffice packages in them. (and I assume different repodata, etc)
18:54:27 <satellit> xorg-x11-server-Xephyr is not loaded with sugar-runner so have to do separate yum install of it.....(non blocking)
18:54:33 <nirik> It might be dgilmore just copied over that from rc1... and we have another tree without them
18:54:54 * nirik looks more.
18:55:03 <adamw> nirik: well, i assumed we'd use a tree that matched rc1.1?
18:55:59 <rbergeron> trust but verify? :/
18:56:05 <rbergeron> lol
18:58:28 <nirik> adamw: well, the public 1.1 tree is the same as 1.
18:58:39 <nirik> ie, both have the libreoffice*-6 old packages in them
18:59:19 <adamw> um. we can sort that out later if need be, right?
18:59:23 <adamw> probably need to talk to dgilmore
18:59:32 <nirik> yeah. I'm not sure how big a deal it is.
19:00:06 * jreznik can add it to the RC ticket confirmation for dgilmore
19:00:20 <jreznik> so what's missing now from matrices?
19:00:47 <jreznik> pwhalen: how does it look like with arm?
19:00:47 <adamw> 1 sec
19:01:28 <pwhalen> jreznik, havent hit anything new, KDE desktop almost finished on the 1.1 matrix
19:01:43 <Viking-Ice> so did fesco decide to push arm to primary this release or is it still on hold ?
19:01:54 <pwhalen> release blocking images boot tested and working
19:01:55 <nirik> yes, it was decided to long ago...
19:02:03 <nirik> unless there were stoppers at alpha
19:02:12 <jreznik> pwhalen: ah, I see - you're filling in RC1.1 one!
19:02:23 <adamw> one silly updates.img source test we did at  tc5
19:02:35 <adamw> iscsi and xen, xen was done for tc5
19:02:37 <Viking-Ice> nirik, seem to have missed me and I do believe every news paper headlines
19:03:25 <nirik> it's right at the top of the f20 changes...
19:03:26 <jreznik> pwhalen: could you copy it over to RC1 matrix? we want to use that one
19:03:27 <nirik> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/ChangeSet#ARM_as_primary_Architecture
19:03:42 <Viking-Ice> ah ok
19:04:04 <Viking-Ice> if it's not published on lwn it never happened ;)
19:04:11 <pwhalen> jreznik, sure..
19:04:16 <jreznik> pwhalen: thanks!
19:04:25 <adamw> kde login, gnome updates tests, i guess
19:04:31 <pwhalen> it was on lwn, iirc :)
19:04:55 <jreznik> Viking-Ice: the idea was to let it open it would lead to a real bad situations
19:05:04 <adamw> gnome updates is a bit of a pain to verify now because there's no updates in the repos and i dunno what quirks there are in gnome-software if you try and test it by enabling u-t
19:05:27 <Viking-Ice> pwhalen,  then there you have it it's official ;)
19:07:22 <adamw> it was definitely working as of tc5 and shell / gnome-software has not changed since
19:08:26 <adamw> i'll try and hack up a test
19:08:56 <adamw> anyone want to take KDE login?
19:09:26 <satellit> will try i386
19:09:31 <adamw> that was last done at tc4
19:09:58 <adamw> though i've tested most login stuff in other rc1 kde testing and it's fine, just not all the 'different keyboard layout' and 'try a wrong password' shenanigans
19:11:04 <jreznik> I actually don't like this testcase... so I'd go with that basic login that everyone tried dozen times
19:11:27 <adamw> jreznik: it's necessary because we've broken keyboard layout stuff quite often before
19:11:29 <satellit> not useing keboard layout
19:11:33 <adamw> since we put this test case in, it hasn't happened
19:11:43 <adamw> we used to get lots of bugs like 'login screen is using the wrong layout;
19:11:59 <adamw> i'd be very surprised if it was broken here, though.
19:12:22 <adamw> i mean, i can do it in a bit, just on two other tests right now
19:12:28 <satellit> works on HD install with 2nd user logout/login
19:13:01 * satellit to origial user
19:13:21 <jreznik> so covered, right? could you mark it down?
19:13:46 <adamw> he didn't test with a different keymap, but otherwise yeah
19:13:49 <adamw> could call it a partial pass
19:14:22 <adamw> efi netinst boot and install to firmware raid, pass
19:17:40 * adamw bodging up a gnome updates test
19:19:16 <adamw> i'm gonna just copy in the gnome menus test from tc5, i've done enough random sampling with rc1 to say it works
19:21:09 <cmurf> i haven't broken rc1 installations in any significant way
19:21:50 <cmurf> seeing as things break when i merely look at them, that's saying something
19:21:51 <roshi> it's worked fine for me throughout all the tests
19:22:16 <roshi> if you weren't so mean, cmurf, that wouldn't always happen
19:22:37 * roshi kids. Has no idea if cmurf is mean or not
19:22:39 <cmurf> my computers develop a distinct sense of humor, quickly
19:22:41 <cmurf> or fail
19:22:45 <roshi> lol
19:22:49 <satellit> updated KDE https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1.1_Desktop#Release-blocking_desktops:_x86_.2F_x86_64
19:23:11 <roshi> wrong matrice satellit
19:23:28 <jreznik> satellit: please use RC1
19:23:47 <satellit> this is 1.1  ok will copy it
19:24:23 <adamw> whew, thank christ, update notification works.
19:24:28 <adamw> for a horrible second there i thought it was broken.
19:25:16 <adamw> i think it may have a bug if you enable updates-testing after it's already run a check, or something, but for the usual case (just using 'updates' repo) it should be okay
19:25:51 <cmurf> i get notificashunz
19:26:23 <adamw> i did a clean test by installing rc1 desktop live, booting to runlevel 3, enabling updates-testing then booting to runlevel 5
19:26:30 <cmurf> it also seems to actually do the update correctly, after reboot, yum update says nothing to update
19:26:36 <adamw> yeah, mine's installing updates now
19:26:38 <adamw> so that's good
19:28:25 <adamw> so let's see
19:28:51 <satellit> copied
19:29:11 <adamw> pwhalen's signed off on the blocker arm tests for install
19:29:25 <adamw> and base
19:30:04 <adamw> missing update notification/install and keyring for KDE, they all work for x86
19:30:11 <adamw> pwhalen: are you running those tests?
19:30:16 <adamw> we also don't have any cloud tests in
19:30:22 <adamw> anyone can check the clouds quickly?
19:30:36 <pwhalen> adamw, yes
19:30:54 <adamw> pwhalen: great
19:31:00 <adamw> thanks :)
19:31:04 * adamw kicks off a full kde login test
19:31:32 <cmurf> for the delta ISO are we testing RC1.1 or RC1
19:32:28 <adamw> sorry? for what deltaiso?
19:32:37 <nirik> I tested openstack with rc1... ? or are we talking ami?
19:33:23 <cmurf> there are two DVD ISO diso files: TC5 to RC1, and RC1 to RC1.1
19:33:29 <adamw> nirik: oh, so you did - but the Base results are missing
19:33:29 <roshi> deltaiso for DVD should be going to rc1.1
19:33:31 <cmurf> test RC1? or RC1.1?
19:33:35 <adamw> i think you guys forget about Base sometimes :)
19:33:46 <adamw> cmurf: if you're testing something now, test RC1.1, as it's what we're looking to ship
19:33:49 <nirik> sorry if I misreported... ;) whats the base cloud ?
19:33:59 <adamw> nirik: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_RC1_Base
19:34:11 <adamw> three of those tests are 'active' for ARM
19:34:15 <adamw> sigh, Cloud
19:34:35 <cmurf> yeah i just want to make sure MacEFI can still boot from a USB stick and install from DVD. That is the case for Live using LITD.
19:34:37 <adamw> they're the 'does it actually work' checks
19:34:39 <nirik> huh.
19:34:55 <nirik> yeah, initial setup doesn't make sense there does it?
19:35:01 <adamw> yeah, that's why it's greyed
19:35:35 <nirik> ah, I see.
19:35:49 <adamw> if you can sign off on the others (ideally with a clear conscience...) it'd be great
19:36:22 <adamw> let me copy across the iscsi and xen results we have for now...
19:36:33 <adamw> if anyone can do either of those quick it'd be great
19:36:53 <nirik> two of them I am sure are good... I didn't check 'systemctl --all --failed'. I can real quick if you like tho
19:37:10 <adamw> if you don't have anything better to do :P
19:37:26 <nirik> just finishing this infra meeting, then I can
19:38:14 <adamw> cool, i'm still running the kde login test
19:39:46 * nirik would like to note again for the record the 'login as fedora user' is stupid.
19:39:58 <roshi> lol
19:40:22 <adamw> ?
19:40:36 * satellit_f20 back from KDE testing
19:40:48 <cmurf> yes it should say "login as fedora god"
19:41:11 <Viking-Ice> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4I4OCgVAv8
19:41:34 <cmurf> there are a lot of libreoffice updates noted in the diso file from TC5 to RC1...
19:41:58 <adamw> cmurf: yes, that was the problem with rc1
19:42:04 <roshi> yeah, then rc 1.1 took them out
19:42:05 <cmurf> ooo
19:42:12 <adamw> cmurf: it got two copies of some LO packages because depsolving is a black box no-one understands
19:42:17 <adamw> rc1.1 took out the dupes
19:42:24 <cmurf> got it
19:42:38 <cmurf> i'm looking at this going WTF that's a lot of FE's for libreoffice!
19:42:42 <cmurf> i don't remember these conversations
19:42:53 <adamw> does anyone who doesn't suck at having good test environments want to test https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_updates.img_via_installation_source ?
19:43:05 <adamw> it's a bear to test, but it hasn't been done since tc2
19:43:28 <adamw> cmurf: we wanted LO -9 for RC1 because it was needed to get the desktop live under size again
19:43:39 <adamw> and LO is a lot of split packages, so there'd be a bunch of changed LOs from TC5->RC1 anyway
19:43:46 <adamw> then the issue with multiples makes it worse
19:43:53 <cmurf> ick
19:44:08 <cmurf> huh kernel updated also
19:44:11 <adamw> for RC1.1 we just pushed -9 stable so -6 wasn't available to the builder any more. dumb, works.
19:44:18 * nirik updates base cloud test. all pass
19:44:21 <adamw> kernel was for the sssd auth thing
19:44:23 <adamw> nirik: yay
19:45:51 <cmurf> we are all in a field. we're all carefully walking forward hoping to not hear a boom.
19:45:54 * satellit finally D/L RC1.1 x86_64 DVD  2 hrs eta here
19:46:11 <adamw> cmurf: =)
19:49:14 <adamw> kde login looks all good to me
19:49:44 <cmurf> satellit: delta iso man, swear by them
19:49:51 * satellit and it shuts down...: )
19:49:56 <cmurf> fakaked
19:50:00 <jreznik> anything else what's really, really needed to be covered now or are we getting to the ok status?
19:50:16 * jreznik has to start working on presentation he has in the morning :)
19:50:46 <adamw> eh, be nice if someone tested updates.img_via_installation source, needs you to have a local mirror you can abuse
19:50:51 <adamw> which i don't
19:51:02 <adamw> but i'm okay taking it from tc2 if we want
19:51:17 <adamw> no reason anything we changed since then ought to have broken it, and it's a pretty minor function
19:51:37 <adamw> pwhalen: how are the last couple of ARM desktop tests coming?
19:51:37 <jreznik> I's day use tc2 for this one
19:52:15 <roshi> how many people have a local mirror?
19:52:16 <pwhalen> adamw, install through gui worked np, just doing yum now
19:52:39 <danofsatx-dt> panorama bug in KDE is still present in RC1, but I think we knew that, right?
19:52:50 <adamw> danofsatx: yeah, we -1ed it easily
19:52:57 <danofsatx-dt> k, just checking
19:53:19 <jreznik> danofsatx-dt: yep
19:54:10 <adamw> pwhalen: you're meant to test the kde graphical update thingy :P oh well
19:54:18 <adamw> it works on x86, really no reason it wouldn't on arm.
19:54:35 <jreznik> adamw: seems like he tested gui and now he's trying yum
19:54:37 <pwhalen> adamw, yes, gui works, trying yum
19:54:40 <adamw> ohhh, i see
19:54:44 <adamw> then check the damn box :P
19:54:57 <jreznik> +10000 :)
19:54:59 <pwhalen> prefer to wait until yum finishes :)
19:55:36 <pwhalen> but ok, done
19:55:38 <satellit> can tese tests be moved to RC1?https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Final_TC5_Desktop?rd=Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test#Non_release-blocking_desktops:_x86_.2F_x86_64
19:56:13 <adamw> satellit: probably safe to, yeah, except maybe LXDE
19:56:25 <adamw> oh, no, i think the LXDE changes were in tc5 already
19:56:39 <adamw> so...yeah, i think there should be no change to any of the non-blocking desktops between tc5 and rc1, unless i forgot something
19:56:56 <satellit> not sure how to do it....
19:57:56 <adamw> there's no clever trick
19:58:01 <adamw> (unless someone invented one while i wasn't looking)
19:58:16 <satellit> copy paste?
19:58:25 <adamw> just enter {{result|(whatever)|previous TC5 run(|bug number)}} for each test
19:58:36 <adamw> no, mark it as 'previous TC5 run' like that
19:58:38 <adamw> there's an example in the key
19:58:46 <satellit> ok
19:59:37 <adamw> so we can wait for pwhalen to do keyring or just cut to the chase, i guess
19:59:57 * adamw goes to put his desktop back together
20:00:06 <Viking-Ice> cut to the chase
20:00:35 <pwhalen> adamw, sorry I didnt realize you guys were waiting on that last one...
20:01:31 <adamw> it's the last thing in the matrices, after we copied a few from the tcs
20:01:42 <adamw> no reason on earth it wouldn't work
20:02:15 <jreznik> so let's move on
20:02:28 <greenlion> adamw, it isn't 5 words!
20:04:01 <Viking-Ice> adamw put the qa jinx on it wouldn't/shouldn't words of failure
20:04:06 <adamw> Viking-Ice: =)
20:04:35 <jreznik> so any objections moving on or do we really want to wait for the last second?
20:04:39 <jreznik> s/for/to
20:04:59 * roshi has no objection
20:05:00 <adamw> nah, fine by me, i'd say coverage is acceptable
20:05:09 <Viking-Ice> drama wait over...
20:05:11 <adamw> i think pwhalen did the test for tc5 anyhow
20:05:25 <cmurf> i'm good, macs boot both DVD and Live desktop using either dd or litd still
20:05:45 <cmurf> and can install (whew)
20:05:46 <jreznik> #info test coverage is considered acceptable by QA
20:05:54 <adamw> huh, no, he always leaves it out
20:06:00 <adamw> pwhalen: what've you got against the keyring test? :P
20:06:06 <adamw> just set up an email account and reboot
20:06:12 <adamw> if it works without asking you for the password, it's good
20:06:12 <jreznik> #topic Go/No-Go decision
20:06:22 <adamw> cmurf: yay, we didn't bust it
20:06:34 <jreznik> so we are there!
20:06:58 <jreznik> adamw, nirik: you guys? we don't have dgilmore for releng unfotunatelly
20:07:11 <cmurf> adamw: yes two in a row would be less than ideal
20:07:21 <nirik> I'm good with go based on what I know currently.
20:07:28 <adamw> be nice if we managed to re-test absolutely everything on RC1/RC1.1, but coverage between TCs and RCs is certainly acceptable; all accepted blockers are addressed in RC1.1/RC1; so QA is 'go' to ship per our rule for voting
20:07:44 <adamw> it would be nice if releng can make the RC1 vs. RC1.1 stuff consistent for release,  but i'd defer to their expertise there
20:08:03 <nirik> yeah, will need to check with dgilmore on that, but hopefully there's no stopper there.
20:08:04 <Viking-Ice> are docs go?
20:08:06 <pwhalen> adamw, working :)
20:08:10 <adamw> pwhalen: yay
20:08:18 <jreznik> Viking-Ice: docs?
20:08:35 <Viking-Ice> common bugs ;)
20:08:53 <jreznik> #info coverage between TCs and RCs is certainly acceptable; all accepted blockers are addressed in RC1.1/RC1; so QA is 'go' to ship per our rule for voting
20:09:14 <nirik> we usually do common bugs after go... well, by 'we' I mean adamw. ;)
20:09:23 * roshi will work on commonbugs
20:09:30 <jreznik> #info devel are 'go' on what's currently known
20:09:30 <Viking-Ice> hurray new victim
20:09:41 <jreznik> #action roshi to work on CommonBugs
20:09:44 <Viking-Ice> I mean writer
20:09:51 * nirik cheers on roshi
20:09:51 <roshi> Lol
20:10:24 <cmurf> throw any nutty partition/booting related commonbugs workarounds write-up requests to me
20:10:30 * roshi wasn't expecting an #action. No backing out now...
20:10:31 <jreznik> for releng part - I'd let it for the ticket, in case there would be a problem on that side, dgilmore would let us know and we can revisit the Go decision
20:10:36 <roshi> Ok
20:10:44 <jreznik> roshi: :D
20:11:06 <nirik> jreznik: sounds good. I will talk with him when he's awake too...
20:11:11 <jreznik> so DVDs/netinst RC1.1 and the rest RC1, right?
20:11:15 <jreznik> nirik: thanks
20:11:31 <nirik> yep
20:12:53 <cmurf> roshi: most of those bugs i'm already cc'd on, if not just cc me, and then in comments ask me write something up that's coherent and i'll report back in the bug with something semi-coherent
20:13:09 <cmurf> :-D
20:13:13 <jreznik> proposal #agreed Fedora QA and Fedora Development are both Go; Fedora Release Engineering to be notified (with possibility to revisit Go decision in case of unexpected issues from releng side)
20:13:16 <roshi> Sweet
20:13:42 <Viking-Ice> so which go's are we missing ?
20:14:16 <nirik> "Release is unanimously declared GOLD by a representative from Development, Release Engineering, and Quality Assurance."
20:14:27 <jreznik> Viking-Ice: it's QA, devel and releng, dgilmore is now in a different TZ so sleeping but he helped us a lot during day working on RC1.1
20:15:04 <jreznik> is the proposal acceptable or do we want to wait for the last go?
20:15:16 <adamw> yeah, i know nothing to indicate releng would be no-go
20:15:18 <nirik> ack
20:15:21 <Viking-Ice> acl
20:15:23 <Viking-Ice> mean ack
20:15:27 <roshi> ack
20:15:30 <adamw> and i think releng is the party that starts Doing Stuff when we say Go, so it's okay to do it this way
20:15:32 * jreznik messed it up and forgot dgilmore at beta, so he wants to make sure to do everything he can do
20:15:51 <adamw> if it turns out dgilmore wants us to be No-Go, he can say so when he wakes up and nothing breaks
20:15:53 <adamw> ack
20:15:53 <nirik> yeah, the releng/infra fun begins now. :) Or continues I guess
20:15:58 <jreznik> #agreed Fedora QA and Fedora Development are both Go; Fedora Release Engineering to be notified (with possibility to revisit Go decision in case of unexpected issues from releng side)
20:16:32 <jreznik> hoorayyy! thanks guys
20:16:56 <cmurf> holy crap it actually happened
20:17:00 <nirik> thanks everyone for all the hard work.
20:17:05 <cmurf> indeed
20:17:09 <jreznik> #action jreznik to announce Go decision and to update the compose ticket
20:17:18 <Viking-Ice> until next time...
20:17:20 <drago01> no no go ?
20:17:22 <drago01> boring ;)
20:17:33 <jreznik> #action nirik to talk to dgilmore about the rc1/rc1.1 trees
20:17:35 <cmurf> right on the first(ish) RC
20:17:48 <jreznik> cmurf: first.first
20:17:59 <cmurf> need to call my bookie, i've won big time betting in RC1.x
20:18:07 <adamw> hehe
20:18:16 <adamw> cmurf: for a certain value of 'right
20:18:29 <cmurf> i always put .x in the contracts
20:18:36 <jreznik> so, thanks again - anything else to add?
20:18:39 <drago01> no
20:19:37 <jreznik> so I'll end the meeting in 3...
20:26:30 <jreznik> 2...
20:27:07 * nirik tries to figure out what units jreznik is using.
20:27:46 <jreznik> jreznik uses "I forgot to countdown" unit :D
20:27:50 <jreznik> 1...
20:28:11 <jreznik> better than forgetting to end the meeting, so let's do it now...
20:28:13 <jreznik> #endmeeting