16:00:07 <jkurik> #startmeeting F23 Final Go/No-Go meeting #2
16:00:07 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 29 16:00:07 2015 UTC.  The chair is jkurik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:07 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:15 <jkurik> #meetingname F23-Final-Go_No_Go-meeting_2
16:00:15 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f23-final-go_no_go-meeting_2'
16:00:25 <jkurik> #topic Roll Call
16:00:28 <nirik> morning everyone
16:00:31 <jkurik> Hi there
16:00:37 <jkurik> who do we have ?
16:00:42 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
16:00:43 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
16:00:58 * kparal is here if needed
16:01:21 <jkurik> roshi, dgilmore - are you with us ?
16:01:31 <jkurik> kparal: thanks
16:01:47 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
16:01:48 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:01:48 <Zironid> Hello
16:01:49 * kparal pokes adamw
16:01:54 <roshi> I am :)
16:02:02 * satellit listening
16:02:53 * pwhalen is here
16:03:38 <jkurik> pbrobinson: can you please represent release-engineering in case dgilmore is not present ?
16:04:02 * mattdm is here
16:04:16 <pbrobinson> jkurik: I can, but I'm not 100% up on where dgilmore is on primary
16:04:49 <jkurik> pbrobinson: better something then nothing :)
16:05:04 <jkurik> ok, lets start
16:05:42 <jkurik> #chair sgallagh kparal pbrobinson dgilmore mattdm nirik roshi
16:05:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore jkurik kparal mattdm nirik pbrobinson roshi sgallagh
16:05:48 <dgilmore> jkurik: I am here
16:06:06 <jkurik> dgilmore: great
16:06:20 <jkurik> #topic Purpose of this meeting
16:06:22 <jkurik> #info Purpose of this meeting is to see whether or not F23 Final is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
16:06:23 <jkurik> #info This is determined in a few ways:
16:06:25 <jkurik> #info No remaining blocker bugs
16:06:26 <jkurik> #info Release candidate compose is available
16:06:28 <jkurik> #info Test matrices for Final are fully completed
16:06:29 <jkurik> #link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/23/final/buglist
16:06:31 <jkurik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_23_Final_RC7_Installation
16:06:32 <jkurik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_23_Final_RC7_Base
16:06:34 <jkurik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_23_Final_RC7_Desktop
16:06:35 <jkurik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_23_Final_RC7_Server
16:06:37 <jkurik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_23_Final_RC7_Cloud
16:06:38 <jkurik> #topic Current status
16:06:43 <jkurik> #info We have several accepted blockers for the Final and also several proposed blockers for the Final.
16:06:50 <jkurik> #info Let's start with Mini-blocker review
16:07:02 <jkurik> roshi: may I ask for your service, please ?
16:07:07 <roshi> sure thing
16:07:12 <jkurik> #topic Mini blocker review
16:07:21 <roshi> 3 proposed blockers, 5 accepted
16:07:24 <roshi> first up
16:07:29 <roshi> #topic (1276333) Anaconda crashes upon probing iSCSI LUN with existing LVM structures
16:07:32 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276333
16:07:35 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
16:07:40 * nirik reads
16:08:40 <nirik> yeah, -1, very corner case...
16:08:55 <kparal> -1
16:09:01 <Zironid> -1
16:09:09 <sgallagh> /me was -1 in the BZ, here as well
16:09:12 <pwhalen> -1
16:09:13 <nirik> but good to have found and nice that it's fixed in rawhide already. ;)
16:09:19 <roshi> yeah -1
16:09:32 <dgilmore> -1 blocker +1 FE, +1 common bugs
16:09:43 <sgallagh> dgilmore: I don't think this is a common bug either
16:09:43 <jkurik> yeah, as sgallagh mentioned - it is an edge case: -1 for blocker
16:09:58 <roshi> aside from dgilmore - any other FE votes?
16:10:00 <dgilmore> sgallagh: you apparently misunderstand what common bugs is
16:10:04 <nirik> an uncommon bug? ;)
16:10:07 <dgilmore> sgallagh: or I do
16:10:17 <roshi> or is it sufficiently edge case to just reject and move on
16:10:20 <Zironid> +1 FE
16:10:21 <dgilmore> sgallagh: its where we document know issues and workarounds
16:10:27 <sgallagh> And I'm -1 FE simply because I don't want to see any non-mandatory churn in blivet at this point.
16:10:43 <dgilmore> sgallagh: thats a poor reason
16:10:49 <jkurik> roshi: I do not see any benefit to have this as FE
16:10:58 <roshi> at this point, neither do I
16:11:00 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Not really; late changes to blivet often cause additional respins
16:11:12 <kparal> -1 FE, too risky at this point
16:11:33 <dgilmore> you can not take where we are in teh cycle as a consideration
16:11:37 * nirik guesses he could be +1FE, but would argue to not take it, so it's as good as -1
16:11:38 <sgallagh> The point of the FE process is to determine risk of including things.
16:11:47 <dgilmore> things are either blockers or freeze exceptions or not
16:11:49 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1276333 - RejectedBlocker Final - This bug is too much of an edge case to block release.
16:11:51 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Not for blockers, sure. But for FE we absolutely can
16:11:54 <nirik> ack
16:11:59 <kparal> ack
16:11:59 <sgallagh> ack
16:12:06 <roshi> #agreed - 1276333 - RejectedBlocker Final - This bug is too much of an edge case to block release.
16:12:09 <jkurik> ack
16:12:15 <roshi> #topic (1275770) Adding third monitor with i915 crashes Gnome
16:12:15 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275770
16:12:15 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, xorg-x11-server-utils, NEW
16:12:36 <dgilmore> sgallagh: FE we do not have to actually pull in
16:13:07 <nirik> -1 blocker, +1 FE, I think it's a corner case we can fix in updates.
16:13:21 <kparal> -1/+1 as well
16:13:30 <Zironid> -1 blocker
16:13:35 <roshi> my thoughts as well
16:13:38 <sgallagh> I voted -1/+1 in the BZ
16:13:41 <pwhalen> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:13:44 <roshi> as "basic functionality" works fine
16:13:50 <jkurik> -1 blocker as it is just for a specific card and more then usual number of monitors :)
16:14:14 <kparal> well, we see issues on many intel cards
16:14:21 <kparal> but still, it's quite uncommon to have 3 monitors
16:14:40 <nirik> and as a workaround you could use 2 until it's fixed. ;)
16:14:49 <jkurik> :)
16:14:50 <kparal> and I guess the fix would not arrive that soon
16:15:21 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1275770 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException Final - This bug doesn't quite violate the criterion as written, because "basic functionality" is still met. However, if there's a fix, we'd consider it in the event of another compose."
16:15:29 <nirik> ack
16:15:39 <kparal> ack
16:15:41 <Zironid> ack
16:15:49 <jkurik> ack - but there will not be "another compose"
16:15:49 <sgallagh> ack
16:15:57 <sgallagh> jkurik: Well...
16:15:59 <roshi> #agreed - 1275770 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException Final - This bug doesn't quite violate the criterion as written, because "basic functionality" is still met. However, if there's a fix, we'd consider it in the event of another compose."
16:16:02 <pwhalen> ack
16:16:09 <kparal> jkurik: let's hope so
16:16:14 <roshi> #topic (1276226) yelp 3.17.3+ cannot open file locations, shows error message 'URL cannot be shown'
16:16:17 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276226
16:16:20 <roshi> #info Proposed Blocker, yelp, NEW
16:16:24 <sgallagh> So, this sucks. A lot.
16:16:46 <sgallagh> Effectively, this results in the install media having no help dialogs.
16:17:03 <roshi> yeah
16:17:28 <nirik> yep. bummer.
16:17:37 <roshi> No help for you!
16:17:48 <pbrobinson> google it :)
16:17:55 <nirik> pbrobinson: +1 ;)
16:18:31 <nirik> anyhow, this is unfortunate, but I don't feel we should block on it. -1/+1
16:18:33 <sgallagh> Obviously no one needs help in Anaconda because it's simple and straightforward.
16:18:43 <nirik> intuitive!
16:18:46 <adamw> ahoy
16:18:50 <adamw> god, why is it so early\
16:18:54 <jkurik> sgallagh: yeah, who reads documentation :)
16:19:02 * nirik hands adamw some coffee
16:19:07 <kparal> it sucks, but I also incline to -1/+1
16:19:15 <Zironid> -1 blocker, +1 FE
16:19:16 <adamw> i honestly think this is pretty terrible
16:19:27 <adamw> but i can be -1 because a) we never wrote a criterion and b) it's not a straightforward fix
16:19:28 <roshi> same here
16:19:37 <nirik> apparently none of us reads documentation... or we would have noticed sooner. ;)
16:19:46 <roshi> I don;t like being -1, actually
16:19:50 <roshi> for this bug
16:19:55 <adamw> but still, if you think about it for a bit...it's the first thing most people see. and if they're having a problem, we're already losing their perception. and then they click Help and they get an error message?
16:19:59 <adamw> it's pretty amateur hour.
16:20:13 <nirik> agreed
16:20:14 <bradfirj> Rookie question: What prevents you from downgrading to the working yelp?
16:20:16 <roshi> s/pretty//
16:20:18 <dustymabe> adamw: yeah
16:20:20 <adamw> (no insult intended, just trying to emphasize it's a bad problem)
16:20:36 <adamw> bradfirj: it'd be feasible, but we'd have to check it didn't break any *other* usage of it
16:20:41 <bradfirj> Understood
16:20:48 <adamw> yelp is the help system for GNOME, so
16:21:06 <dgilmore> +1 FE
16:21:13 <bradfirj> Reading BZ it looks like it's totally broken, even outside of anaconda
16:21:14 <sgallagh> I'm clearly +1 FE here.
16:21:32 <roshi> +1 FE for sure
16:21:36 <dgilmore> I will take adamw's word it does not violate criteria
16:21:37 <sgallagh> bradfirj: Right, but outside of anaconda, it can be fixed in an update
16:21:46 <adamw> bradfirj: the style where it's invoked on a file path isn't used by everything
16:21:53 <nirik> I'm also all for adding critera and tests for next time. ;)
16:21:53 <jkurik> If it will be FE - how we are going to fix it ? Downgrade ?
16:21:54 <adamw> afaict most GNOME apps use a different style which still works
16:22:06 <dgilmore> jkurik: we will not fix it
16:22:10 <adamw> jkurik: making it FE basically means we're not going to fix it, unless another blocker showed up which i'm not aware of.
16:22:12 <roshi> and I really want to be +1 blocker, since it's such a user facing thing, and will really frustrate people who needed it
16:22:18 <sgallagh> jkurik: I spoke to the GNOME folks; a fix is being worked on, but I'm unsure of the timeframe
16:22:23 <adamw> because if there are no blockers, we're shipping, most likely.
16:22:24 <dgilmore> jkurik: but if we spin another RC we can pull in a fix
16:22:30 <nirik> if there is one
16:22:37 <jkurik> ok
16:22:50 <mattdm> roshi: yeah, I'm kinda sympathetic to that view. sadly.
16:22:50 <jkurik> then +1 FE
16:22:58 <adamw> yeah, i'm kinda with roshi. but we didn't catch it till yesterday and we don't have a criterion we can point to.
16:23:11 <adamw> so i can be -1 very reluctantly, i guess, if we don't want to slip another week to try and fix it.
16:23:13 <dgilmore> I am with roshi also
16:23:21 <sgallagh> I think we have a quorum of FESCo around if we're prepared to declare it a FESCo-level blocker
16:23:27 <dgilmore> but we can only go by what the guidelines say
16:23:49 <dgilmore> unless FESCo decided to block on it
16:23:49 * nirik doesn't think we should block on it.
16:23:56 <adamw> dgilmore: we *can* write a new criterion on the fly. viking_ice used to hate us changing the rules on the run like that, and i kinda do too, but we've done it before, where we felt something 'obviously' should be a blocker
16:24:02 <mattdm> eh. the guidelines are guidelines. there are plenty of things that could be even more terrible but aren't in the guidelines
16:24:14 <roshi> yeah, it's not a blocker per the criterion (though, I'll be proposing such a criterion)
16:24:19 <roshi> (for F24)
16:24:20 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm more open to adding a new blocker than dropping one at Go/No-Go, but I don't much care for either
16:24:25 <dgilmore> adamw: sure. it is a path I do not like
16:24:42 * adamw would be interested in what #anaconda folks think
16:24:43 <adamw> let me ask 'em
16:24:48 <mattdm> "Fedora Project: Making things up as we go since 2003!"
16:24:53 <nirik> the thing is... I would be ok blocking on it if we had a critera and tested for it... but this is kind of last minute...
16:25:07 <sgallagh> Honestly, I'm torn here because it *is* a pretty visible problem that you're likely to hit when trying to solve other problems.
16:25:20 <sgallagh> But at the same time, it isn't preventing the system from working in any meaningful way.
16:25:24 <roshi> yeah, if it's going to block F23, I'd want FESCo to do it
16:25:30 <roshi> and propose a new criterion for F24
16:25:33 <sgallagh> And it's not the bad-old-days where Google didn't yet exist
16:25:42 <mattdm> It seems like the kind of thing reviews might notice and comment on
16:25:49 <roshi> for sure
16:25:57 <mattdm> I dunno if that's more or less important than being annoying to users :)
16:26:03 <roshi> "Need Help? Fedora has none for you!"
16:26:17 <dustymabe> mattdm: yeah "headline" fear
16:26:21 <Zironid> roshi: +1 XD
16:26:22 * roshi can see the headlines :p
16:26:44 <bradfirj> Nobody tell TheRegister, I can see the headlines too
16:26:58 * nirik notes that they will read this and _now_ they will note it. ;)
16:27:00 <sgallagh> Nobody do #info on this at least.
16:27:07 <dustymabe> "Fedora knew the help was broken but went forward anyway"
16:27:11 <dustymabe> :)
16:27:12 <sgallagh> I know some of the reporters read the minutes :)
16:27:24 <nirik> no worries. Default to open!
16:27:41 <roshi> so, votes on getting FESCo to vote on this being a blocker?
16:27:43 * adamw notes that phoronix is probably reading this. hi, phoronix. :P
16:27:55 <adamw> let's have a vote on the vote!
16:27:59 <sgallagh> On the other hand, we actually got pretty good press on the slip we just had, with most people being happy we were holding for quality.
16:28:07 <nirik> we need to form a comittee to vote on voting
16:28:07 <adamw> <bcl> I'd lean towards no.
16:28:32 <mattdm> #info Fedora ♥s reporters!
16:28:41 <sgallagh> Anyway, I'm going to vote -1 blocker here, but not happily.
16:28:47 <adamw> hey phoronix, we're just gonna, uh, leave this $500 here in the corner, alright?
16:28:51 <roshi> and mattdm  doesn't have chair ... ;p
16:28:54 <sgallagh> .fire mattdm for using unicode icons
16:28:54 <zodbot> adamw fires mattdm for using unicode icons
16:29:04 <adamw> it'd be terrible if the wrong person were to pick it up. just awful.
16:29:15 <dgilmore> #info Fedora ♥s reporters!
16:29:20 <mattdm> dgilmore++
16:29:37 <sgallagh> /me can't fire dgilmore, he's too valuable.
16:29:38 <roshi> #chair mattdm
16:29:38 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore jkurik kparal mattdm nirik pbrobinson roshi sgallagh
16:30:08 <nirik> anyhow, where are we on votes?
16:30:14 <jkurik> +1 to let FESCo decide
16:30:19 <adamw> i'm sticking with sadface -1/+1.
16:30:19 <sgallagh> I haven't seen a single +1 blocker vote
16:30:34 <nirik> I'm still -1/+1 also
16:30:36 <adamw> though i don't object to asking fesco.
16:30:55 <dgilmore> sgallagh: it does not violate criteria, so the only way its a blocker is if FESCo says so
16:31:07 <sgallagh> Right
16:31:22 <Zironid> -1/+1, and FESCo opinion :P
16:31:30 <sgallagh> I thought we had more of FESCo here, but it looks like only three of us.
16:31:39 <nirik> I'm not sure we can scare up all of fesco on short notice.
16:31:47 <nirik> especially those in .eu
16:31:51 <sgallagh> right
16:31:59 * adamw lights up the fesco beacon
16:32:00 <dgilmore> if we can get a fix this morning for yelp, I can make RC10 and we can test it and ship Tuesday
16:32:05 <roshi> proposed #agreed - 1276226 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException Final - As regrettable as this is, it doesn't actually violate any criterion and is not blocking. However, FESCo will be discussing this as it's a nasty user facing bug.
16:32:07 <sgallagh> Straw poll from the three people here?
16:32:32 <sgallagh> OK, yeah let's just fire up the FESCo-signal^H mailing list and ask
16:32:33 <nirik> sgallagh: I think all 3 of us are -1 blocker
16:32:37 <kparal> ack
16:32:40 <pschindl> ack
16:32:42 <sgallagh> ack
16:32:42 <nirik> ack
16:32:54 <Zironid> ack
16:32:55 <dgilmore> sgallagh: its not going to effect me but i would be willing to fix if we get it quick enough
16:32:56 <roshi> #agreed - 1276226 - RejectedBlocker AcceptedFreezeException Final - As regrettable as this is, it doesn't actually violate any criterion and is not blocking. However, FESCo will be discussing this as it's a nasty user facing bug.
16:33:02 <sgallagh> dgilmore: I'll check on it.
16:34:15 <sgallagh> Checking with the GNOME folks now; cschalle will get back to me soon with an ETA
16:34:38 <dgilmore> okay
16:34:51 <adamw> sgallagh: it's worth asking about brad's suggestion (can we just drop to 3.16.0)
16:35:25 * mattdm is afk to meet wife for lunch. see you all in a bit
16:35:59 <nirik> ok, thats all proposed? do we want to go over the accepted?
16:36:02 <sgallagh> adamw: Added to the queue
16:36:22 <adamw> nirik: they're all fine.
16:36:28 <nirik> cool.
16:36:29 <adamw> well, assuming someone checked the release notes are actually right in RC7.
16:36:41 <adamw> oh
16:36:42 <adamw> well
16:36:42 <nirik> can you read those with yelp? ;)
16:36:43 <dgilmore> adamw: RC9 that is underway now
16:36:47 <adamw> dgilmore: wat.
16:36:51 <adamw> i guess we need to discuss that one
16:36:58 <adamw> #1276165
16:37:00 <dgilmore> adamw: RC7 and 8 failed
16:37:02 <roshi> yeah
16:37:04 <adamw> dgilmore: awesome
16:37:12 <dgilmore> adamw: yeah i am super happy
16:37:13 <roshi> #topic (1276165) F22 release notes still in F23
16:37:13 <roshi> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276165
16:37:13 <roshi> #info Accepted Blocker, fedora-release-notes, ON_QA
16:37:36 <adamw> so, yeah, another one we somehow missed until now.
16:37:37 <sgallagh> So this is the reverse of the previous one
16:37:42 * roshi imagines dgilmore green and saying "You won't like me when I'm happy."
16:37:51 <sgallagh> A criterion exists, but maybe isn't useful any more :)
16:38:09 <sgallagh> Jeepers, dgilmore is imposing enough *without* hulking out.
16:38:12 <adamw> sgallagh: well, it could do with a bit of a tweak
16:38:24 <adamw> but i'm OK with blocking on 'an image has the F22 release notes on it', really
16:38:28 <roshi> this is another one I'd really rather not ship with
16:38:38 <adamw> i'm fine with an image not having the release notes *at all* - i think workstation actually took 'em out
16:38:46 <nirik> they did
16:38:48 <sgallagh> This is the ONLY change between RC6 and RC9, correct?
16:38:54 <adamw> but having the *wrong* release notes sitting there in the menus is just bad.
16:39:02 <jkurik> I am +1 to block on this
16:39:05 <dgilmore> adamw: I am okay with making sure release notes are fixed, and doing a quick sanity test of RC9
16:39:06 <sgallagh> Hold up
16:39:09 <adamw> sgallagh: yeah, should be. well, that and anything they did in the compose process to try and fix Atomic.
16:39:12 <sgallagh> It's not part of Workstation, so where is it?
16:39:17 <adamw> sgallagh: KDE and Xfce at least
16:39:26 <kparal> also DVD?
16:39:26 <nirik> all the spins I think?
16:39:28 <sgallagh> Oh FFS
16:39:28 <adamw> possibly any of the other goddamn 5,000 images we build now
16:39:37 <adamw> i didn't really have time to check all of 'em
16:39:56 <sgallagh> I mean, if it was only on Server or something where no one would ever see it...
16:40:41 <adamw> no, i found it while i was doing the KDE menus test.
16:40:45 <nirik> it's also on cloud
16:40:48 <nirik> and arm
16:40:53 <adamw> somehow managed to avoid dying of terminal boredom before i got that far through the menus.
16:41:04 <sgallagh> Why the <expletive deleted> is it on Cloud?
16:41:06 <Southern_Gentlem> wouldnt this be an easy zero day fix
16:41:12 <adamw> Southern_Gentlem: not for the live images.
16:41:27 <nirik> it's in @standard
16:41:36 <adamw> nirik: i thought cloud only took @core ?
16:41:54 <adamw> anyhow, yeah: our thinking on this was, we can do a quick respin with the correct release notes and then just sanity check the results
16:42:02 <nirik> # Packages to enable server images to run in cloud environments
16:42:02 <nirik> ...@standard
16:42:05 <adamw> all RC6 testing would be valid for it since this was the only change
16:42:11 <sgallagh> Right
16:42:13 <adamw> so we accepted it quickly to get RC7 (or, well, RC9) spun.
16:42:23 <adamw> expecting that the sanity testing could be done overnight, only the compose failed.
16:43:02 * nirik nods
16:43:07 <adamw> so if we really, really wanted to just ship RC6, we'd have to agree to ditch the release criterion, basically.
16:43:24 <adamw> otherwise we can go ahead and test RC9 today and ship it, i guess, or we can slip.
16:43:26 <nirik> should we just keep this meeting open to do that? or how much 'sanity testing' should we leave for go?
16:43:30 <roshi> wrong release notes, no help
16:43:39 <adamw> it's intuitive!
16:43:43 <sgallagh> adamw: What about the "Reconvene tomorrow with RC10 hopefully including the yelp fix" option?
16:43:52 * nirik is +1 blocker here and thinks we should test RC9
16:44:29 <jkurik> nirik: +1
16:44:42 <dgilmore> I am okay waiting until tomorrow to make the decision
16:44:48 <roshi> well, it's already an accepted blocker
16:44:49 <dgilmore> nirik: +1
16:45:14 <Zironid> I like the RC10 idea
16:46:14 <roshi> if we get a yelp fix, I lean heavily for waiting for that
16:46:34 <dgilmore> roshi: RC9 is underway
16:46:45 <dgilmore> RC10 we could do if we get a yelp fix
16:47:10 <roshi> welp, I guess that's it for the blocker review portion
16:47:37 <jkurik> roshi: thanks
16:47:52 * roshi would want an RC10 just for that fix - guess we'll just wait for what FESCo says
16:48:14 <roshi> np jkurik, glad to help
16:48:19 <Zironid> +1 roshi
16:48:29 <jkurik> so, sounds like we should have one more Go/No-Go meeting tomorrow, right ?
16:48:30 <sgallagh> Update on the yelp situation
16:48:35 <sgallagh> Good news/bad news
16:48:44 <roshi> sure, always is
16:48:49 <sgallagh> Bad news: a fix for this will not happen within 24 hours.
16:49:24 <sgallagh> Good news: We *could* try to get a fast anaconda build that calls yelp with the URI format instead of the file path format
16:49:32 <sgallagh> If they are willing to do so
16:49:45 <roshi> or, just back out that version to a knownworking one
16:49:55 <adamw> would that work?
16:50:01 <dgilmore> thats what epochs are for
16:50:02 <adamw> anaconda's files aren't in the right place and are in a different format.
16:50:11 <adamw> i meant the URI thing, not the downgrade thing.
16:50:18 <dgilmore> adamw: sure :)
16:50:18 <pschindl> +1 for blocking on this. Wait for RC9+ and let the OpenQA do basic testing and then release it.
16:51:00 <sgallagh> adamw: Unclear; I'm asking the anaconda folks now
16:51:14 <sgallagh> roshi: As for the downgrade, mclasen__ didn't seem confident that it would be safe
16:51:23 <adamw> k
16:51:28 <roshi> ah
16:52:16 <mclasen__> you are asking us to build a 3.16 yelp against 3.18 gtk, newer webkitgtk, ...
16:52:41 <mclasen__> that seems to have a lot more unknowns and potential to break help for all apps
16:52:46 <dgilmore> mclasen__: it was a thought
16:52:48 <sgallagh> mclasen__: Agreed
16:52:53 <pschindl> I would wait for RC9 just becouse of the amount of work dgilmore left on it.
16:53:09 * roshi wasn't sure what all was involved, it was just a thought mclasen__
16:53:16 <mclasen__> I'm looking at some possible workarounds here
16:53:32 <mclasen__> yelp comes with a yelp-build script that you can run to generate html from the docbook
16:54:45 <adamw> nirik: to go back to the earlier question, btw, for 'sanity testing', the openQA tests plus a decent subset of 'burn the thing to actual media and check it boots properly' tests would be ok, i think.
16:55:23 <dgilmore> adamw: :)
16:55:29 <nirik> ok. sounds like people would just prefer to meet again tomorrow same time and decide if RC9 was go or not
16:55:45 <roshi> seems like it
16:55:52 <Zironid> Sounds good to me
16:56:12 * nirik was just trying to figure a way to just say 'rc9 is go if no blockers found by xyz time' so we could stage sooner, etc.
16:56:17 * roshi will cover some of the burning to media tests and get some cloud folks to test the cloud stuff
16:56:20 <adamw> if someone comes up with a decent-looking fix for the help issue we can do RC10, I guess.
16:56:43 <adamw> nirik: we can probably have it done by this evening, i'd guess.
16:57:05 <adamw> but it'd be *good* to have the brno folks' testing time on it too.
16:57:32 <dgilmore> adamw: they could test all day tonmorrow :)
16:57:41 * kparal is excited
16:57:56 <kparal> time to break from the isolation unit
16:57:56 <adamw> dgilmore: well, if we do the decision tomorrow, yes. if we aim to do it tonight (US time), they can't.
16:58:01 <roshi> don't worry, kparal will find something else :p
16:58:05 * adamw bangs some more nails in
16:58:30 <sgallagh> adamw: Is it an isolation unit or an iron maiden?
16:59:13 <nirik> adamw: quick... change his /etc/hosts to point to partner-bugzilla.redhat.com for bugzilla.redhat.com. ;)
17:01:50 <adamw> sgallagh: potato, potahto
17:02:05 <jkurik> #info RC9 to be built to accomodate BZ 1276165
17:02:50 <jkurik> so, voting about meeting tomorrow at the same time or waiting till RC9 is build and then decide ?
17:03:03 <nirik> lets just meet again tomorrow same time
17:03:09 <nirik> that will allow more testing time
17:03:51 <sgallagh> FWIW, it's looking increasingly unlikely that a fix for the anaconda help issue will land today.
17:04:28 <jkurik> ok, then lets meet tomorrow
17:05:26 <jkurik> #info Go/No-Go decision to be made on Friday's meeting which is going to be organized at the same time as today
17:05:54 <jkurik> anyone wants to go through coverage matrices ?
17:06:20 <jkurik> looks like we do not need to do this now
17:08:07 <jkurik> #topic Go/No-Go decision
17:08:55 <sgallagh> No-Go today, revisit tomorrow
17:09:06 <jkurik> #agreed We are going to organize one more Go/No-Go meeting on Friday to make the final decision as we need to have RC9 ready before the decision is made
17:09:15 <jkurik> #topic Open floor
17:09:28 <jkurik> so, thanks for the meeting folks
17:09:40 <jkurik> anything else someone want to discuss ?
17:09:49 <Zironid> Thanks everyone
17:10:23 <nirik> thanks for running things jkurik
17:10:37 <jkurik> #action jkurik to plan the Friday's Go/No-Go meeting
17:11:12 * jkurik is going to close the meeting in approx. 60s
17:11:33 <dgilmore> thanks jkurik
17:11:44 <roshi> thanks jkurik
17:11:52 <jkurik> ... 30s ...
17:12:20 <jkurik> thanks all for comming
17:12:24 <jkurik> #endmeeting