17:01:43 <jreznik> #startmeeting F21 Alpha Go/No-Go meeting - 3
17:01:43 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 18 17:01:43 2014 UTC.  The chair is jreznik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:43 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:55 <jreznik> #meetingname F21 Alpha Go/No-Go meeting - 3
17:01:55 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f21_alpha_go/no-go_meeting_-_3'
17:01:57 <jreznik> #topic Roll Call
17:02:14 <roshi> .hellomynameis roshi
17:02:15 <zodbot> roshi: roshi 'Mike Ruckman' <mruckman@redhat.com>
17:02:26 <mattdm> .hellomynameis mattdm
17:02:27 <zodbot> mattdm: mattdm 'Matthew Miller' <mattdm@mattdm.org>
17:02:30 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh
17:02:31 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:02:35 <jreznik> amita: this is the old style how to start meeting :)
17:02:39 <danofsatx> .hellomynameis dmossor
17:02:40 <zodbot> danofsatx: dmossor 'Dan Mossor' <danofsatx@gmail.com>
17:02:46 * satellit listening
17:02:56 <Southern_Gentlem> .hellomynameis jbwillia
17:02:57 <zodbot> Southern_Gentlem: jbwillia 'Ben Williams' <vaioof@yahoo.com>
17:03:07 <jreznik> dgilmore, adamw: ping
17:03:08 <nirik> .hellomynameis kevin
17:03:10 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
17:03:23 <jreznik> #chair roshi mattdm sgallagh nirik
17:03:23 <zodbot> Current chairs: jreznik mattdm nirik roshi sgallagh
17:03:38 <satellit> .hellomynameis satellit
17:03:40 <zodbot> satellit: satellit 'Thomas Gilliard' <satellit@bendbroadband.com>
17:04:06 <jreznik> let's wait a moment for more folks to come
17:04:21 * pwhalen is here for arm
17:04:38 <roshi> who represents leg?
17:04:47 <jreznik> #chair pwhalen
17:04:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: jreznik mattdm nirik pwhalen roshi sgallagh
17:04:48 <roshi> if we don't have both, how can we pay for anything?
17:05:11 * kalev is here for Workstation.
17:05:13 <jreznik> roshi: /me is here for left leg
17:05:35 <sgallagh> jreznik: Are you pulling my leg?
17:05:35 <roshi> :)
17:05:45 <roshi> MOAR PUNS
17:05:56 <sgallagh> Nah, I should be PUNished.
17:06:05 <roshi> jreznik: if you like I can run through the blockers while people show up
17:06:17 * jwb is here for... some reason
17:06:28 <dgilmore> hol
17:06:29 * adamw is here
17:06:56 <jreznik> ok, so we have more folks now
17:07:02 <jreznik> let's start for real!
17:07:18 * sgallagh buckles up
17:07:34 <jreznik> #chair dgilmore adamw
17:07:34 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw dgilmore jreznik mattdm nirik pwhalen roshi sgallagh
17:07:44 <jreznik> #topic Purpose of this meeting
17:07:46 <jreznik> #info Purpose of this meeting is to see whether or not F21 Alpha is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
17:07:47 <jreznik> #info This is determined in a few ways:
17:07:49 <jreznik> #info No remaining blocker bugs
17:07:50 <jreznik> #info Release candidate compose is available
17:07:52 <jreznik> #info Test matrices for Alpha are fully completed
17:07:53 <jreznik> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/alpha/buglist
17:07:55 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Alpha_RC1_Install
17:07:56 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Alpha_RC1_Base
17:07:58 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Alpha_RC1_Desktop
17:07:59 <jreznik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Alpha_RC1_Server
17:08:36 <jreznik> to make process happy, let's start with blockers review - we have a few proposed for today
17:08:44 <jreznik> roshi: may I ask you?
17:08:54 <roshi> currently we have 3 blockers to look at
17:08:56 <roshi> sure :)
17:09:01 <roshi> first
17:09:01 <roshi> #topic (1101341) Rescue a Fedora system from grub menu doesn't launch anaconda rescue mode
17:09:04 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101341
17:09:07 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, MODIFIED
17:09:30 <roshi> there'a already a fix for it
17:09:43 <roshi> adamw's updates.img proves that it works
17:10:07 * dgilmore is +1 as a blocker unless we decide to throw out the criteria
17:10:21 <adamw> i believe we have a 'pocket' RC3 which includes the fix for this, FWIW.
17:10:23 <mattdm> dgilmore can you update on the rc2 and rc3 statuses?
17:10:28 <roshi> +1 (same as dgilmore)
17:11:00 <mattdm> I agree that it's clearly a blocker without... making it not a blocker :)
17:11:11 <dgilmore> RC2 is done but i dumbly pulled in a python-blivet update that pulled in the fix from a couple of weeks back since anaconda folks added the epoch
17:11:35 <dgilmore> a RC3 is composing now that uses the python-blivet from RC1 but the fixed anaconda
17:11:38 <jreznik> if you take it this way, it is... so the question is why important we think rescue is important to be Alpha blocker
17:12:01 <jreznik> dgilmore: is it "safe"combination?
17:12:11 <roshi> I don't see it as too important for alpha, I'd be +1 for moving this to a beta blocker
17:12:20 <dgilmore> jreznik: RC3 is the safest
17:12:42 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 beta blocker
17:12:47 <sgallagh> I agree; rescue mode should be a beta blocker
17:13:16 <mattdm> Assumption for main reasons: A) we don't want to penalize people by making alpha unsafe and B) it's nice if you test something and mess it up and want to use rescue mode to diagnose so you can fix it for betar
17:13:17 <jreznik> from the other look - alpha could be broken, so rescue mode could have more use
17:13:18 <mattdm> beta
17:13:21 <dgilmore> RC2 has http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=578876 and http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=578875
17:13:28 <dgilmore> RC3 just http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=578875
17:13:42 <adamw> FWIW, the criterion has existed since the very first 'modern' criteria in F13
17:14:29 <mattdm> can a functioning rescue entry be relatively-easily created after install?
17:14:30 <jreznik> I don't mind having it as blocker, if RC3 is going to land soon and we would be able to run some smoke testing on it
17:14:47 <kalev> I'll note that this only affects Server that ships a DVD installer with full Anaconda; Workstation only ships Anaconda in the live installer mode
17:14:49 <dgilmore> what is the consequences of no working rescue mode?
17:15:06 <adamw> in fact, it was one of the things brought into the new criteria from the *old* criteria
17:15:11 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA:ReleaseCriteria&oldid=18834
17:15:23 <adamw> so it dates all the way back to MoinMoin. i don't know how to track it back into MoinMoin. :P
17:15:43 <dgilmore> adamw: we can't :(
17:15:46 <jreznik> dgilmore: you'd need some other way to boot to fix your issue aka live, usb etc...
17:15:53 <Southern_Gentlem> dgilmore, to meet means we have a blocker ==nogo  or go with documentation
17:15:58 <adamw> so it's worth considering that we may place less importance on the case of a person with one medium, one computer and no network connection than we did previously
17:16:22 <roshi> it's a fair point
17:16:28 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: blockers are blockers. if we accept it as a blocker we block. if we don't want to block we have to come up with some plausible reason not to take it as a blocker.
17:16:44 <dgilmore> adamw: right. I agree that the chances of someone installing Alpha and only having the one computer are much much less than they used to be
17:17:05 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: we can rewrite the criteria on the fly, which is effectively what we're discussing here, and it's kind of a process hack and some people don't really like it, but...in a project like fedora there has to be some degree of flex.
17:17:06 <roshi> fwiw, most of the +1 blocker votes have been "because it's in the criteria" not "because I see this as something awful."
17:17:42 <adamw> i tend to figure that when we hit a proposed blocker and there's a strong 'why is THAT in the criteria?!' response it means we got the criteria wrong.
17:17:54 <roshi> same here
17:18:02 * sgallagh nods
17:18:44 <adamw> when it gets too 'ehh, but we really want to ship NAAOOOOW' but no-one's flat out saying they think the criterion's wrong, i'm more inclined to stand up for it
17:18:44 <nirik> so the only change in rc3 is the anaconda changes to fix this rescue thing?
17:18:52 <dgilmore> nirik: yes
17:18:55 <Southern_Gentlem> to me who is going to install an alpha as there main machine
17:19:04 <adamw> dgilmore: did you use the same spin-kickstarts as rc1?
17:19:08 <adamw> it got a couple of commits post-rc1
17:19:09 <dgilmore> nirik: though its still in progress
17:19:12 <sgallagh> Proposal: Rescue mode moves from an Alpha Blocker criterion to a Beta blocker criterion.
17:19:20 <dgilmore> adamw: we always pull the latest
17:19:29 <adamw> so rc3 in fact has a couple of other changes
17:19:29 <jreznik> dgilmore: how long it's going to take to finish? +/-
17:19:49 <nirik> adamw: are those changes much? just fixing mat?
17:19:50 <nirik> mate
17:19:55 * satellit Mate is in rc-3 so spins.ks has changed there
17:19:56 <adamw> mate and a font change in kde
17:19:57 <mattdm> Does running 51-dracut-rescue-postinst.sh post-install generate a working rescue mode?
17:20:04 <dgilmore> adamw: so the spin-kickstarts changes are pulled in
17:20:17 <adamw> mattdm: that's a different rescue mode, i think.
17:20:27 <jreznik> dgilmore: do we always have to use the latest? wouldn't be freeze or exact commit better for such cases as this one?
17:20:29 <dgilmore> jreznik: its ~1/2 done
17:20:34 <adamw> oh, and note, we can provide an updates.img for this, in fact i already have. but of course, that requires you to have some way to access it.
17:20:36 <dgilmore> about 3-4 hours more
17:20:55 <mattdm> adamw oh yeah. I get it now.
17:21:17 <jreznik> and can we take only affected part of compose?
17:21:39 <sgallagh> jreznik: No, a compose is a complete unit.
17:21:43 <dgilmore> not easily but sure
17:21:45 <adamw> sgallagh: we've done it before
17:21:48 * sgallagh blinks
17:21:53 <adamw> sgallagh: it just involves dgilmore ninja-ing ISOs around
17:21:53 <sgallagh> OK, I didn't realize that
17:21:59 <adamw> don't look behind the curtain
17:21:59 <mattdm> I'm +1 to moving it to being a beta criterion
17:22:02 <dgilmore> we have respun just the lives
17:22:08 <adamw> but anyway, we are getting a bit academic
17:22:23 <Southern_Gentlem> so a) we have a blocker b) block is fixed c) we need time for rc3 to compose to test am i correct
17:22:27 <adamw> i'm fine with moving this criterion to beta, and not just as a fudge for shipping. it's the right thing to do, it doesn't need to be alpha.
17:22:28 <jreznik> ok, so let's call vota on moving the criterion to beta
17:22:32 <dgilmore> so the question remains. is it a blocker?
17:22:33 <kalev> I'm +1 to moving it to being a beta criterion as well
17:22:34 <nirik> I guess it feels to me like we should call it a blocker, and try and ship rc3... but that will be more validation work for qa
17:22:48 <dgilmore> i guess the question is more do we change the criteria?
17:23:08 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: we haven't accepted it as a blocker
17:23:09 <jreznik> dgilmore: yeah, that's the question now
17:23:20 <dgilmore> nirik: RC1 should count we would just need to make sure that resuce mode worked
17:23:32 <nirik> yeah
17:23:50 <roshi> as the criteria read, it's a clear blocker - I don't think that's been disputed
17:23:57 <mattdm> I think the criteria is right but at the wrong place for the current process
17:23:57 <dgilmore> so right now i think we agree its a blocker per the current critera, but do we change that?
17:24:20 <dgilmore> do we move the critea to Beta?
17:24:24 <nirik> I can see good reasons it should now be beta... seems kind of odd to change it now when we hit it tho, but I guess when else do we think hard about which milestone
17:24:25 <dgilmore> criteria
17:24:26 <jreznik> dgilmore: adamw seems to be in mood to move it
17:24:41 <dgilmore> adamw: what say you?
17:24:49 <jreznik> dgilmore: see above
17:25:26 <jwb> we're talking about alpha and rescue mode, right?
17:25:32 <danofsatx> +1 beta blocker
17:25:32 <jreznik> jwb: yep
17:25:34 <roshi> I'm +1 for moving it. If this was just "we need to ship so break the rules" it would be one thing, but this criteria doesn't seem to fit the current ecosystem
17:25:35 <dgilmore> proposal, move resuce mode criteria to being a Beta blocker from Alpha Blocker
17:25:58 <Southern_Gentlem> i cant see where a reasonable person would install an alpha and there not be sometype of issue so to me this is a beta issue
17:26:01 <jwb> putting my way-back hat on, i think it was added because alpha is the most likely milestone to result in _needing_ rescue
17:26:01 <adamw> +1
17:26:13 <danofsatx> +1
17:26:15 <jwb> as in, people try it, stuff breaks, now they need to recover
17:26:17 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
17:26:18 <sgallagh> +1
17:26:24 <mattdm> I think, without knowing how much more work it would take to revalidate a new RC, that when it comes right to down to it, any time the number is more than "no effort", I'd rather ship. Which is kind of the definition of "not actually a criterion"
17:26:40 <sgallagh> jwb: As noted in the scrollback, this was also a time in life when people tended not to have alternate ways of recovering (like Live USB)
17:26:42 <dgilmore> jwb: yeah
17:26:45 <adamw> jwb: for me it's kinda reasonable these days to expect someone testing an alpha to not be betting the farm on it
17:26:48 <pwhalen_> +1 (though agree with what jwb said)
17:26:53 <jreznik> jwb: that's my thinking too, on the other hand - for alpha, you always has main computer to download live... and to be honest, I use live, not rescue, it's just easier
17:26:58 <mattdm> we should _definitely_ release-notes this
17:27:04 <adamw> we do explicitly say the alpha is for *test* environments, which kinda strongly implies you don't try and deploy it if you'd be screwed if it broke
17:27:14 <sgallagh> mattdm: Common Bugs
17:27:26 <nirik> +1 I suppose
17:27:32 <mattdm> sgallagh or maybe a little stronger. i look there _after_ i have a problem.
17:27:38 <adamw> and it's definitely a stronger likelihood these days that you'll have a network connection and/or a live image lying around somewhere and/or a previous release image with a working rescue mode
17:27:40 <dgilmore> so 6 +1
17:27:43 <jreznik> +1
17:27:51 <dgilmore> #agreed move resuce mode criteria to being a Beta blocker from Alpha Blocker
17:27:51 <jwb> mattdm, it doesn't matter where you document it.  people won't read it
17:28:12 <Southern_Gentlem> jwb but it needs documenting
17:28:14 <adamw> jwb: but if we document it then when they complain about it we can tell them they should have read the documentation. documentation is an ass-covering exercise. :P
17:28:18 <jreznik> jwb: commonbugs are pretty good material to read and I think a lot of people reads it
17:28:29 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1101341 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear blocker of the written criteria. However, it was decided to move the criteria to the Beta milestone as it better fits our understanding of the typical use case
17:28:32 <jwb> jeez guys.  read what i wrote.  i didn't say "don't document it"
17:28:33 <Southern_Gentlem> jreznik,  wanna bet
17:28:39 <mattdm> jwb I dunno -- I at least _skim_ alpha release notes when I'm doing something risky.
17:28:52 <adamw> jwb: and actually, quite a lot of people do read docs - it's not 100%, so you still hear a lot from folks who don't, but there's certainly a significant number who do
17:28:56 <mattdm> roshi: +1
17:28:57 <jwb> OMG
17:29:20 <roshi> ack/nack/patch?
17:29:22 <danofsatx> +1
17:29:22 <sgallagh> roshi: ack
17:29:23 <jreznik> ack
17:29:25 <danofsatx> ack\
17:29:26 <adamw> ack
17:29:26 <jsmith> ACK
17:29:28 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:29:32 <jwb> you waste more time arguing then it would take to actually just go do that
17:29:32 * roshi will secretary these bugs so the meeting can go on
17:29:35 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: i don't have the page views for CommonBugs, but when I was at Mandriva, I wrote equivalent pages (the Errata) and they were among the most-viewed on the wiki - hundreds of thousands of views
17:29:39 <pwhalen> ack
17:29:42 <dgilmore> ack
17:29:47 <mattdm> ack
17:29:48 <adamw> jwb: did you forget this is fedora or something? :)
17:29:48 <kalev> ack
17:29:51 <roshi> #agreed - 1101341 - AcceptedBlocker - This bug is a clear blocker of the written criteria. However, it was decided to move the criteria to the Beta milestone as it better fits our understanding of the typical use case
17:29:55 <roshi> onto the next
17:30:05 <Southern_Gentlem> adamw,  we direct people to them every release in #fedora
17:30:05 <roshi> #topic (1143990) Fedora Server is missing the adcli command on default install
17:30:06 <jreznik> jwb: and it would not be your time to fix it :0
17:30:08 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1143990
17:30:11 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, comps, MODIFIED
17:30:59 <adamw> of the three this is kinda the most blocker-y to me
17:31:04 <sgallagh> Short version: we're missing the adcli package on RC1 and because of that, we cannot do a realm-join during install, only after.
17:31:11 <adamw> but i'm probably OK with documenting the kickstart workaround
17:31:14 <dgilmore> there is another workaround, make sure the everything repo is enabled and install adcli
17:31:15 <sgallagh> (Because the package isn't on the image)
17:31:26 <sgallagh> I was getting to that :)
17:31:26 <dgilmore> since the use case here is kickstart installs
17:31:30 <roshi> but if we've already got a RC3 building with this fix we don't need to block on it, right?
17:31:33 <adamw> and it's easy to document kickstart workarounds
17:31:36 <adamw> roshi: it doesn't have the fix
17:31:42 <adamw> comps delays\
17:31:42 <dgilmore> im -1 blocker with a documented workaround
17:31:43 <sgallagh> The workaround for both KS and interactive is to add the Everything repo.
17:31:47 <roshi> oh - I thought note 3 said it would be in there
17:31:54 <roshi> comment 2
17:31:55 <sgallagh> I'd prefer not to block on this and to instead add it to Common Bugs
17:31:57 <adamw> yeah, sgallagh didn't know about the mash delay
17:31:58 * nirik is with dgilmore. -1 blocker, document
17:32:04 <sgallagh> But it's technically in violation of the release criteria
17:32:07 <jreznik> well, looking on this one, I think this is pretty strong criteria for Alpha - freeipa, yes, AD - is it that really important for Alpha?
17:32:24 <sgallagh> jreznik: FreeIPA is not affected
17:32:24 <adamw> sgallagh: well, we have wiggle room in interpreting them: the criterion says "it must be possible", and it *is* possible, we can document how.
17:32:33 <adamw> you need a network connection and a repo line in your kickstart, but it's possible.
17:32:44 * sgallagh nods
17:32:44 <dgilmore> roshi: that note is incorrect and is a result of not knowing how the compose process actually works
17:32:45 <jreznik> sgallagh: I'm saying, freeipa is ok, just ad is not if I understand it correctly
17:32:46 <adamw> this is a wiggle that can be abused, obviously, but we'd only ever use it for good ;)
17:32:52 <Southern_Gentlem> dgilmore, this fix would be in rc3 correct?
17:32:55 <adamw> jreznik: yes, that's correct
17:32:56 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: no.
17:33:04 <roshi> ah, now I know - thanks dgilmore adamw
17:33:06 <dgilmore> Southern_Gentlem: no it takes a full mash of the tree that we do nightly
17:33:17 <dgilmore> it can't be fixed until tomorrow
17:33:35 <Southern_Gentlem> -1 blocker
17:33:39 <roshi> -1 blocker and document, the workarounds are easily documented and it *is* possible as adamw says
17:33:39 <jreznik> -1 blocker
17:33:41 <sgallagh> -1 blocker
17:33:44 <kalev> -1 blocker
17:33:49 <danofsatx> -1
17:33:49 <pwhalen> -1
17:33:58 <sgallagh> (Yay, I joined adamw's club of people voting against their own proposed blockers!)
17:33:59 <adamw> -1
17:34:05 <adamw> sgallagh: see, doesn't it feel fun
17:34:11 <sgallagh> It really does
17:35:01 <adamw> sgallagh: sometimes i feel like i'm running an insurrection against myself; i'm the one who mostly maintains this giant pile of criteria and also the one who comes up with the plausible-sounding reasons for ignoring them
17:35:07 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1143990 - RejectedBlocker - While this bug seems to be a blocker, there are workarounds which make it possible to join FreeIPA and AD domains. The fix will land in Beta TCs.
17:35:20 <dgilmore> ack
17:35:25 <adamw> patch
17:35:25 <pwhalen> ack
17:35:28 <nirik> ack
17:35:28 <sgallagh> roshi: patch
17:35:31 <adamw> no workaround needed for FreeIPA
17:35:38 <adamw> s/FreeIPA and//
17:35:47 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1143990 - RejectedBlocker - While this bug seems to be a blocker, there are workarounds which make it possible to join AD domains. The fix will land in Beta TCs.
17:35:50 <sgallagh> patch
17:35:59 <roshi> go for it sgallagh
17:35:59 * dgilmore waits on sgallagh
17:36:24 <jreznik> I still think fro Alpha AD is maybe too much as for criterion but I'm not server guy...
17:36:30 <sgallagh> proposed #agreed - 1143990 - RejectedBlocker - While this bug seems to be a blocker, there are workarounds which make it possible to join AD domains. The fix will land in Beta TCs. The workarounds will be documented on Common Bugs.
17:36:40 <roshi> ack
17:36:40 <dgilmore> ack
17:36:45 <kalev> ack
17:36:46 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:36:48 <pwhalen> ack
17:36:51 <danofsatx> ack
17:36:57 <jreznik> do we want to mention it's going to be in beta? not a big deal, so ack
17:37:01 <nirik> sure..
17:37:08 <dgilmore> jreznik: ive not used windows or AD in over 8 years so im probably not the best person to judge
17:37:16 <roshi> #agreed - 1143990 - RejectedBlocker - While this bug seems to be a blocker, there are workarounds which make it possible to join AD domains. The fix will land in Beta TCs. The workarounds will be documented on Common Bugs.
17:37:35 <roshi> last blocker
17:37:35 <sgallagh> jreznik: This missing package was pretty much the *only* way to screw up this criterion :-/
17:37:38 <jreznik> dgilmore: as alpha is usually - it boots, hey, we're good!
17:37:42 <sgallagh> (and not also break FreeIPA)
17:37:49 <roshi> #topic (1142949) ABRT is not downloading debuginfo packages
17:37:49 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142949
17:37:49 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, rpm, MODIFIED
17:38:14 <kalev> this one is easy to work around by installing updates
17:38:19 <roshi> this was already voted on in bug, 3 -1s
17:38:32 <danofsatx> and another -1 here
17:38:40 <dgilmore> -1 I do not see what criteria it violates
17:38:56 <jreznik> -1
17:39:04 <kalev> -1
17:39:14 <mattdm> -1 pile-on!
17:39:16 <adamw> yeah, this is a comfortable -1.
17:39:31 <adamw> let's make sure the fix gets out nice and quick, though
17:39:38 <adamw> be good to get it karma'ed up so it's queued for the first stable push
17:39:43 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1142949 - RejectedBlocker - This bug violates no criteria and is easily remedied with an update post-install.
17:39:50 <nirik> ack
17:39:53 <sgallagh> roshi: ack
17:39:55 <danofsatx> ack
17:40:07 <kalev> ack
17:40:13 <dgilmore> ack
17:40:17 <roshi> #agreed - 1142949 - RejectedBlocker - This bug violates no criteria and is easily remedied with an update post-install.
17:40:18 <jreznik> ack
17:40:28 <roshi> that's it for blockers unless someone has something to ninja in
17:40:30 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:40:48 * roshi passes the meeting baton back to jreznik
17:41:00 <jreznik> thanks roshi
17:41:01 <danofsatx> meeting bacon?
17:41:10 * danofsatx needs new glasses
17:41:20 <danofsatx> or lunch....
17:41:24 <jreznik> there are still two blockers in ON_QA and MODIFIED state in the list
17:41:33 <Southern_Gentlem> .moar danofsatx bacon
17:41:33 <zodbot> here bacon, have some more danofsatx
17:41:35 <dgilmore> jreznik: which are?
17:42:27 <roshi> .bug 1134524
17:42:29 <zodbot> roshi: Bug 1134524 Product-ized network install images do not offer filtered group lists - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1134524
17:42:34 <roshi> and
17:42:36 <jreznik> dgilmore: on is netinst - we have ack from fesco it's not needed for alpha, so it should be updated in the bug -> Beta
17:42:47 <roshi> .bug 1139015
17:42:47 <dgilmore> jreznik: okay
17:42:49 <zodbot> roshi: Bug 1139015 F21 Workstation Alpha TC6 network install fails with crash, hang, reboot or "pane is dead" - caused by anaconda segfault - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1139015
17:42:54 <adamw> my expectation is that this will actually work once MM is fixed
17:43:02 <adamw> anaconda is hitting the correct URLs
17:43:05 <adamw> where are we with MM, dgilmore?
17:43:07 <dgilmore> im still dealling with MM
17:43:19 <kalev> we should also make sure to actually drop the netinstall images to avoid users downloading things that don't work
17:43:20 <roshi> MM is like geometry, just ignore it :)
17:43:22 * roshi ducks
17:43:30 <adamw> kalev: i don't think we need to drop them
17:43:42 * mattdm keeps reading MM as my initials
17:43:50 <roshi> Common Bugs would be enough for that, and the fix will appear when MM works
17:43:52 <adamw> i think it'd be kind of a bad idea, really
17:43:53 <jreznik> kalev: it works, just not in productized way
17:43:57 <dgilmore> kalev: we really cant easily drop bits and pieces of teh composes
17:44:02 <dgilmore> kalev: and they will work
17:44:09 <dgilmore> just not as maybe expected
17:44:15 * satellit easy to point to another repo (netinstall)
17:44:25 <adamw> kalev: so what will happen is both will act as universal netinsts if you just leave the repo configuration at default
17:45:04 <adamw> you can also pass them the URL to one of the Product trees manually (in the UI, with a kickstart 'url' directive, or a cmdline 'repo' directive) and they'll act as Product-ized netinsts
17:45:18 <adamw> right now the OOTB function is broken until dgilmore gets MM fixed
17:45:39 <dgilmore> i have told mm to not ignore stage
17:47:04 <jreznik> but I'd say, we're ok to ship neinst - so let's move on to the another bug on the list
17:47:34 <roshi> pane is dead seems to have gone away - I haven't seen it while testing
17:47:46 <jreznik> just we need to secretarize netinst somehow
17:48:11 <sgallagh> jreznik: Just a reminder that this was unilaterally declared non-blocking by FESCo?
17:48:15 <roshi> I'll just note that fesco said netinst wasn't required for alpha workstation
17:48:35 <adamw> from a QA perspective we agreed that if the netinsts behave as universal OOTB, that doesn't violate any criteria
17:48:58 <satellit> list real repo hhtp:// for each on get fedora page?
17:49:05 <jreznik> still I'd move it to beta blockers so it's still on radar even I know it's on everyone's radar here :)
17:49:09 <roshi> define OOTB for me?
17:49:18 <sgallagh> roshi: Out of the box
17:49:19 <adamw> roshi: i mean when you boot the image it gives you a valid repo
17:49:25 <adamw> what the criteria actually say is:
17:49:25 <dgilmore> roshi: put the iso in a machine and boot
17:49:25 <adamw> "The network install image must default to a valid publicly-accessible package source. "
17:49:26 <roshi> thanks
17:49:32 <adamw> obviously that should be plural
17:49:48 <adamw> but it doesn't state what the source has to be. maybe we want to change that in future, but for right now...it's not violated.
17:49:57 <dgilmore> adamw: I have every reason to believe it will be right
17:50:08 <adamw> dgilmore: yeah, i'm expecting you can get it fixed by release day
17:50:28 <adamw> so if we assume that, we can say that according to the release validation process, the blocker-iness of this bug is addressed
17:50:35 * nirik nods.
17:50:55 <mattdm> and there should be help available from some of the fedora engineering team to get mirrormanager working
17:50:55 <jreznik> adamw: thanks
17:50:59 <adamw> whether the not-product-ized-ness of it would block Alpha was a FESCo call, not a release validation process issue, and we can note that FESCo said "no".
17:51:04 <Southern_Gentlem> by fesco this is a beta
17:51:25 <jreznik> let's move on
17:51:30 <roshi> so productized netinst bug has been handled, any thoughts on the pane is dead bug?
17:51:30 <kalev> from Workstation perspective, I'm happy if dgilmore says the images will start working as designed by release day
17:51:41 * roshi hasn't seen it
17:51:53 <adamw> haven't seen it in tc7/rc1 testing
17:52:11 <jreznik> ok, thanks - so move it to the right state pls
17:52:18 <adamw> either the squashfs fix fixed it or we just got lucky (or it's there in some fricking image or other and we missed it...there are like 29 of the things now)
17:52:19 <roshi> I can document that we haven't seen it and close it
17:52:46 * adamw looks at http://ftp.heanet.ie/pub/fedora-archive/fedora/linux/core/1/x86_64/iso/ and feels a pang of longing
17:53:03 <adamw> jreznik: i'll update it
17:53:09 <jreznik> thanks guys
17:53:17 <jreznik> so all blocker bugs are covered
17:53:18 <dgilmore> adamw: :) much easier to make
17:53:20 <jreznik> now
17:53:27 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1138015 - Close this bug and note that it hasn't been seen.
17:53:34 <roshi> or nvm me ;)
17:53:44 <adamw> ack
17:53:48 <jreznik> ack
17:53:49 <Southern_Gentlem> ack
17:53:50 <sgallagh> ack
17:53:53 <kalev> ack
17:53:56 <nirik> ack
17:53:58 <roshi> adam you'll update the last two bugs? or just the last one?
17:53:59 * sgallagh notes that the #topic is out of date, BTW
17:54:03 <danofsatx> ack
17:54:16 <jreznik> #topic Blocker bugs status
17:54:25 <jreznik> to make sgallagh happy :)
17:54:30 <roshi> #agreed - 1138015 - Close this bug and note that it hasn't been seen.
17:54:51 <sgallagh> jreznik: It'll make the minutes nicer :)
17:54:55 <adamw> roshi: just the last one, sorry, forgot y ou had it
17:55:31 <jreznik> well, we have all blocker bugs covered now unless someone has anything to raise now (I hope not)
17:55:33 <roshi> no worries - just wanted to make sure I didn't not do it thinking you were
17:56:03 <sgallagh> jreznik: So, just so we're clear, if I'm understanding it correctly, we have no unaddressed, approved blockers left?
17:56:09 <jreznik> #info all Fedora 21 Alpha accepted blocker bugs are resolved
17:56:17 * satellit will mate spin be in the release?
17:56:19 <jreznik> sgallagh: yeah
17:56:23 <adamw> satellit: not if we ship RC1, no.
17:56:40 <roshi> I don't know of any sgallagh - seems we're good to go
17:56:45 <adamw> satellit: you could unofficially point people at the RC3 MATE image if it exists and stays lying around in /stage, i guess.
17:56:52 <dgilmore> we have not been great about making sure spins compose and get tested for Alpha
17:56:58 <dgilmore> something we need to fix for Beta
17:57:07 <nirik> yeah
17:57:13 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Well, spins are by definition non-blocking (except KDE)
17:57:24 <dgilmore> I do not think its fair to drop any spins post alpha
17:57:24 <jreznik> dgilmore: it's man power, if someone is interested in spins, he should step in... we can't do more
17:57:40 <dgilmore> sgallagh: right but in f20 we dropped spins that missed a milestone
17:57:44 * Southern_Gentlem will help testing the spins
17:58:01 <satellit> will upload RC-3 Mate to sugarlabs as a backup
17:58:15 * nirik doesn't think its good to ship untested/possibly broken spins either.
17:58:25 <Southern_Gentlem> and i will see if i can round up more spin testers
17:58:33 <sgallagh> I don't have a problem with mate being reintroduced in Beta as long as someone takes responsibility for it
17:58:37 <roshi> spins were easier to test when we had *an* image
17:58:40 <jreznik> sgallagh: +1
17:58:52 <dgilmore> sgallagh: right
17:58:52 <satellit> Fedora-Live-MATE_Compiz-x86_64-21-20140918.iso tested fine USB to HD
17:59:08 <dgilmore> anyway thats off topic right now
17:59:11 <jreznik> yep
17:59:14 <jreznik> let's move on
17:59:21 <dgilmore> jreznik: and the topic now is go/nogo?
17:59:22 <jreznik> #topic Test matrcies coverage
17:59:28 <jreznik> #undo
17:59:28 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x13087210>
17:59:37 <jreznik> #topic Test matrices coverage
17:59:56 <roshi> coverage looks pretty good for alpha
18:00:00 * jreznik should clean his lcd to avoid such typos due to garbage on his screen
18:00:30 <jreznik> is there anything missing?
18:00:43 <dgilmore> adamw: ?
18:01:00 <roshi> cloud stuff
18:01:06 * roshi pings oddshocks
18:01:16 <dgilmore> cloud things have not been blocking in the past
18:01:31 <roshi> they are now - the base image
18:01:43 <dgilmore> we are working on new uploading tooling and getting that deployed
18:02:05 <roshi> oddshocks manually uploaded the AMIs to test
18:02:20 * roshi hasn't had a chance to do it - but could do it quick
18:02:21 <adamw> so, has anyone tested it? can anyone test?
18:02:26 <adamw> yeah, that'd be good
18:02:50 <sgallagh> mattdm: ^^?
18:02:59 <adamw> we're missing update install on ARM, though i see no reason at all it'd be broken
18:03:13 <roshi> mattdm: have you poked at the recent images at all? for cloud?
18:03:17 <jreznik> adamw: I saw it too and I think it would be ok
18:03:28 <sgallagh> Not all of the ARM Server tests have completed (I've been working with pwhalen on those)
18:03:35 <sgallagh> I'm reasonably confident there, though
18:03:35 <adamw> we don't really strictly require all tests on all arches, we can be reasonable about inferring results (this has always been the case)
18:03:42 * oddshocks lurking
18:04:04 <roshi> oddshocks: did your /bin/true tests pass on the images you uploaded yesterday?
18:04:09 <adamw> i was wondering if anyone would notice the "install_to_SAS' landmine i left in 'storage device tests', and apparently the answer is no. ;)
18:04:10 <pwhalen> adamw, sorry, which update install?
18:04:21 <adamw> pwhalen: just test that 'yum update'
18:04:22 * mattdm was afk for one second and them my name comes up :)
18:04:23 <adamw> works, basically
18:04:30 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_desktop_updates
18:04:41 <adamw> (for alpha only installation with yum has to work, we probably need to split up the test case)
18:04:44 <mattdm> I did not look at the rc images yet
18:05:11 <adamw> does anyone at all have a SAS drive?
18:05:33 <pwhalen> oh, yes, i did do yum but the gui didnt work, needed to look at it again, but looks like it was missing something
18:05:47 <sgallagh> adamw: I do, but not on a machine I'm thrilled with clobbering...
18:06:28 <dgilmore> adamw: got rid of my sas drives
18:06:35 <jreznik> we're are waiting for cloud reassurance now, right?
18:06:50 <jreznik> SAS sounds too British :)
18:06:57 <roshi> yeah jreznik
18:06:59 <oddshocks> roshi: hey sorry for delay. the one i sent you worked properly, and the other 2 built properly, but there's a small bug i have to fix (i hardcoded something for testing earlier and forgot to make it variable again)
18:07:05 <sgallagh> jreznik: serial-attached-SCSI
18:07:17 <jreznik> sgallagh: just joking :)
18:07:19 <oddshocks> roshi: i'll send you and post in fedora-cloud the links to all 3 within a couple hours
18:07:38 * nirik has servers with sas drives, but they are all in use.
18:07:55 <oddshocks> roshi: basically fedimg tried to test 2 of the images as an arch that they weren't because of my hardcoding. but everything is working properly otherwise :P
18:08:49 <jwb> i have a SAS drive
18:08:55 <jwb> it's in a ppc64 machine though
18:09:28 <roshi> oddshocks: so it wasn't an issue with the build itself?
18:09:36 <roshi> so outside the release process
18:10:01 <roshi> so you can sign off on initial_setup, startup and system_logging?
18:10:01 <jreznik> roshi: any eta on cloud?
18:10:51 <roshi> jas
18:11:14 * mattdm will clear some time to help with cloud in the next few hours
18:11:35 <oddshocks> roshi: nope, builds looked proper :) but I'll have confirmation for you very soon. i don't even have to release another package version right now, i can just manually hotfix and cut the new releases. so theoretically you could have them within an hour.
18:11:44 * oddshocks apologizes for being in 2 meetings and a call at once :P
18:11:45 * jreznik would like to get to go/no-go in next few minutes
18:11:49 <roshi> everything looks good for me when running this cloud instance
18:11:53 <roshi> I can update the matrices
18:11:54 <adamw> i'm fine with waiving SAS for now on the basis of hardware exotic-ness, but i'm noting the results of my test of all y'all's attentiveness to the test plan. ;)
18:12:09 <oddshocks> roshi: did you check out that one AMI I sent that did work 100%?
18:12:14 <stickster> adamw: Sorry, did you say something?
18:12:22 <adamw> aside from the ones we've now discussed, I don't see any other worrisome missing tests.
18:12:42 <roshi> oddshocks: ami-20268848
18:12:52 <jreznik> adamw: if we want sas in matrices, we should make sure to have such hw available - is there any possibility to find budget to get some?
18:13:33 <roshi> cloud looks good to me, I think
18:13:40 <jreznik> great roshi
18:13:40 <roshi> for alpha at least
18:13:53 <roshi> it for sure needs more poking, but stuff is working
18:14:17 <oddshocks> roshi: that's the one!
18:14:36 <jreznik> so it seems like we have everything from QA coverage now!
18:14:49 <roshi> sorry it was so last minute :)
18:15:51 <jreznik> #info test matrices coverage is good for Alpha, SAS is waived on the basis of hardware exotic-ness
18:16:33 <jreznik> let's move to Go/No-Go before everyone gets bored and leaves
18:16:33 <jwb> i'd propose moving SAS to be server specific
18:16:59 <stickster> That seems reasonable.
18:17:20 <jreznik> and take a look on some budget for qa guys to have sas available :)
18:17:24 <stickster> jreznik: +1, I was late but presumably everyone else wasn't.
18:17:51 <adamw> jwb: the test case is sort of generated by a generic criterion that all supported local storage interfaces have to work
18:18:12 <adamw> i was curious whether anyone would spot that SAS was in that set and say 'waiaaaaiiit a minute' but apparently not...:P
18:18:19 <jreznik> let's move on, test case could be discussed outside of this meeting
18:18:21 <adamw> sure
18:18:36 <jreznik> #topic Fedora 21 Alpha Go/No-Go decision
18:18:59 <kalev> GOOOOOO
18:19:08 <stickster> :-)
18:19:16 <jreznik> so it's time :)
18:19:23 <stickster> go!
18:19:31 <danofsatx> go.
18:20:20 <jreznik> well, it's defined as QA/releng and engineering decision, so adamw and QA guys, dgilmore and nirik, sgallagh and FESCo guys, your time
18:20:37 <stickster> ;-)
18:20:53 <roshi> is the assumption that we'll be having an RC3?
18:21:17 <sgallagh> roshi: no
18:21:18 <danofsatx> since RC3 is building as we speak?
18:21:25 <dgilmore> releng is go
18:21:27 <sgallagh> We're currently asking whether RC1 is declared GO
18:21:32 <roshi> it wasn't clear to me based on that landed
18:21:33 <roshi> ok
18:21:54 <sgallagh> nirik: I'm voting GO. Any objection?
18:22:00 <sgallagh> mattdm: From you either?
18:22:02 <jreznik> roshi: as all blockers in RC1 are resolved, we're going with it
18:22:17 <roshi> wfm - just checking :)
18:22:18 <jreznik> #info release engineering is go
18:22:25 <roshi> I'm a go
18:22:26 <mattdm> no objections. the cloud images look fine
18:22:45 <mattdm> and i think the rc1 decision is the good one
18:23:13 <jreznik> #info engineering is go
18:23:38 <jreznik> I see roshi for QA, anyone else? adamw?
18:23:50 <adamw> we can say QA is go per our policy
18:24:05 <jreznik> #info QA is go
18:24:06 <adamw> no unaddressed blockers, ~full (SAS handwave) test coverage
18:24:47 <jreznik> proposed #agreed Fedora Release Engineering, Engineering and QA are Go for Fedora 21 Alpha RC1
18:24:52 <sgallagh> ack
18:25:01 <roshi> ack
18:25:03 <danofsatx> ack
18:25:07 * sgallagh opens the sparkling cider.
18:25:09 <kalev> ack
18:25:25 <stickster> \o/  woop woop!
18:25:29 <jreznik> sgallagh: /me has prepared an early wine, it's going to explode :)
18:25:35 <roshi> time for a bourbon it seems :)
18:25:36 <stickster> ha
18:25:52 <jreznik> #agreed Fedora Release Engineering, Engineering and QA are Go for Fedora 21 Alpha RC1
18:25:53 <sgallagh> jreznik: I'm saving the champagne/burchak for Final :)
18:26:26 <jreznik> sgallagh: it's burcak season now, so I'm trying to enjoy it as much as possible
18:26:44 <sgallagh> Sounds good to me
18:26:48 <jreznik> thank you everyone for a great job on the first .next release!
18:26:58 <roshi> oh comeon, this is just a socially sanctioned excuse for MOAR likker
18:27:01 <roshi> :p
18:27:02 <stickster> *golf clap
18:27:10 <sgallagh> roshi: Your point being...? :)
18:27:26 <roshi> this "in-season/out-of-season" talk :p
18:28:02 <roshi> well, now that that is done, time to eat my sandwich and update some bugs
18:28:15 <jreznik> #action jreznik to announce Go/No-Go meeting result and to help to coordinate release on Tuesday
18:28:30 <jreznik> #topic Open floor
18:28:46 <jreznik> should be "open drinking floor"
18:28:53 <sgallagh> So as of now, the schedule puts us at Dec. 02 for Final?
18:29:04 <jreznik> sgallagh: unfortunately yes
18:29:17 <jreznik> so we don't have a lot of space for more slips
18:29:35 <sgallagh> So realistically, we can't afford to slip more than once more before holiday vacations pull the rug out from under us.
18:29:40 <jsmith> Yeah, we'll all have to be more on top of things for Beta
18:29:57 <jreznik> but we can as always try some voodoo magic and be flexible at around beta time
18:30:31 <stickster> sgallagh: +1
18:30:32 <adamw> so obviously what we need to do now is for people to look at the Beta release criteria and test cases and make sure they're all appropriate and correct
18:30:33 <sgallagh> Question: would there be any value in starting the Beta Freeze a little early (maybe three or four days) to give more time to stabilize and still release on time?
18:30:36 <adamw> which would be a fine plan if we *had* them
18:30:47 <adamw> so, I guess I should stop reading HTTP authentication RFCs and go write some
18:30:51 <kalev> sgallagh: I was just about to ask the exact same thing.
18:31:01 <jreznik> sgallagh: I'm not sure it makes sense now
18:31:13 <sgallagh> jreznik: When would it make sense?
18:31:21 <sgallagh> We can't move *up* deadlines without notice :)
18:31:34 <jreznik> three days are not that much and we usually don't have many issues with freeze (and unstability)
18:31:53 <jreznik> as adamw pointed out, we need good coverage of beta criterions as early as possible
18:32:40 <roshi> that's what to work on next
18:32:55 <jreznik> and if we hit another slip during beta, we can consider pulling back schedule as we did a few times in the past
18:33:45 <sgallagh> ok
18:33:48 <jreznik> let's follow it closely and I'll make sure to raise it to fesco when needed
18:33:51 <jreznik> anything else?
18:33:52 <sgallagh> jreznik: Thanks
18:34:10 <jreznik> my dinner is ready (like for an hour, so probably already cold :)
18:34:27 <jreznik> setting fuse...
18:34:37 <jreznik> and thanks again for coming!
18:34:39 <jreznik> 3...
18:35:12 <jreznik> 2...
18:35:33 <jreznik> 1...
18:35:34 <roshi> thanks for running it jreznik :)
18:35:43 <jreznik> #endmeeting