15:02:17 <jkurik> #startmeeting Prioritized_bugs_and_issues
15:02:17 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 30 15:02:17 2016 UTC.  The chair is jkurik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:17 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:02:17 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'prioritized_bugs_and_issues'
15:02:25 <jkurik> #meetingname Fedora Prioritized bugs and issues
15:02:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_prioritized_bugs_and_issues'
15:02:30 <jkurik> #topic Roll Call
15:02:37 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
15:02:38 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
15:02:38 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
15:02:40 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
15:03:01 <jkurik> #chair jkurik mattdm mcatanzaro dustymabe sgallagh
15:03:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: dustymabe jkurik mattdm mcatanzaro sgallagh
15:03:04 <sgallagh> I heard from mattdm that he is sick today, so we shouldn't expect him.
15:03:18 <jkurik> Yes, I read his email
15:04:25 <jkurik> dustymabe will be late as he has a meeting conflict
15:06:03 <jkurik> hopefully mcatanzaro will join us soon
15:06:31 <jkurik> is there anyone else who is interesting to join us for the "Prioritized bugs" meeting ?
15:07:17 <linuxmodder> jkurik,  not sure of the scope but sure
15:07:21 <linuxmodder> .fas linuxmodder
15:07:22 <zodbot> linuxmodder: linuxmodder 'Corey W Sheldon' <sheldon.corey@openmailbox.org>
15:07:39 <jkurik> hi linuxmodder and thanks
15:07:47 <jkurik> #topic Purpose of this meeting
15:07:53 <jkurik> #info The purpose of this process is to help with processing backlog of bugs and issues found during the development, verification and use of Fedora distribution.
15:07:58 <jkurik> #info The main goal is to raise visibility of bugs and issues to help contributors focus on the most important issues.
15:08:03 <jkurik> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/Prioritized_bugs_and_issues_-_the_process?rd=Fedora_Program_Management/Important_bugs_and_issues_process
15:08:11 <linuxmodder> jkurik,  so what component or more of a meta bug prioritization?
15:08:11 <jkurik> #topic Setup of the Evaluation team
15:08:35 <linuxmodder> so more like an easy fix  in infra ?  (reading link still )
15:09:31 <jkurik> not exactly "easy fix". it should be more like what anoys users the most, or what has big impact on users
15:09:34 <sgallagh> linuxmodder: No, this is more like "These bugs are serious but don't actually hit blocker criterion"
15:10:17 <linuxmodder> ah I'd be down for helping in that
15:10:19 <sgallagh> It's basically meant to be a list of bugs whose fixes have very high value and therefore would be really nice to prioritize.
15:10:26 <linuxmodder> not the docs part tho not enough cycles
15:11:36 <jkurik> At first we need to agree on the team who will perform the evaluation of proposed bugs.
15:12:05 <jkurik> My proposal is to have representatives from Working Groups
15:12:36 <jkurik> so I was thinking of these people: jkurik mattdm mcatanzaro dustymabe sgallagh
15:12:58 <jkurik> me and mattdm are to WG representatives, but we will be running this show :)
15:13:05 <sgallagh> jkurik: A strong argument could be made that this is directly under FESCo's charter, if they wanted to own it.
15:13:09 <jkurik> s/to/not/
15:13:34 <jkurik> sgallagh: good point
15:13:42 <linuxmodder> I'm hardly active enough atm from the server WG but don't mind giving testing cycles or input from that angle
15:14:15 <jkurik> I might open a FESCo ticket to discuss this on a FESCo meeting
15:14:23 <sgallagh> I'd like for us to go for a "consensus of people who show up" approach unless that turns out to not work.
15:14:36 <linuxmodder> +1 ^
15:15:40 <jkurik> ok, so it is basicaly the same as for Blocker Review
15:15:57 <sgallagh> We need to be careful that this doesn't lead to everyone's pet bug getting treated as urgent, and therefore the list stops being useful.
15:16:01 <linuxmodder> jkurik,  only makes sense
15:16:35 <sgallagh> So I think I'd actually like to suggest that any -1 vote triggers a discussion followed by a rejection if that person remains unconvinced after a reasonable time.
15:16:43 <jkurik> I have no problem with this, as for Blocker Bugs this seems to work
15:16:46 <linuxmodder> sgallagh,  bi-weekly  or monthly ML announce or poll of some sort across all aspects maybe?
15:17:17 <sgallagh> linuxmodder: I'm not sure that follows.
15:17:21 <linuxmodder> so its not just those that show or stumble on the group
15:17:29 <sgallagh> What I'm getting at is this: the list will only be useful as long as it is *short8
15:17:57 <linuxmodder> ah yeah that makes sense
15:18:20 <jkurik> currently we have 4 bugs nominated
15:18:23 <sgallagh> i.e. no component should end up with 30 high-prio bugs.
15:18:44 <sgallagh> s/i.e./e.g./ (Wrong usage there)
15:19:16 <sgallagh> So from my perspective, giving literally anyone who shows up the right to veto its inclusion on the list makes sense.
15:19:42 <sgallagh> It allows anyone with a strong conviction to keep our limited resources reined in to what is truly important
15:20:43 <jkurik> proposed #agreed The Evaluation team is not going to be fixed as proposed in the current process description. All the people showing up during the Evaluation meeting will have their voice.
15:20:44 <sgallagh> I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't want this to be a "wish-list", I want it to be a "to-do list"
15:21:20 <jkurik> does it make sense if I change the process description as above ^^^ ?
15:21:39 <sgallagh> jkurik: I think that's compatible with what I'm proposing
15:22:33 <linuxmodder> jkurik,  I'm cool with the agreed proposal as athe going charter
15:22:40 <jkurik> #agreed The Evaluation team is not going to be fixed as proposed in the current process description. All the people showing up during the Evaluation meeting will have their voice instead.
15:22:44 <jkurik> ok, thanks :)
15:23:00 <jkurik> #action jkurik do change the process description as agreed
15:23:50 <jkurik> we have the evaluation team now, so we can start with the evaluation
15:24:21 <jkurik> #topic Evaluation of proposed bugs
15:24:28 <jkurik> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&list_id=6795225&namedcmd=FedoraPrioritized_Nomination&remaction=run&sharer_id=352756
15:24:45 <jkurik> this is the list of currently nominated bugs ^^^
15:25:07 <jkurik> Our task is to go through all the nominated bugs and decide whether we will approve it for the Prioritized list or not
15:25:22 <jkurik> lets start with the first one
15:25:39 <jkurik> .bug 1341829
15:25:39 <zodbot> jkurik: Bug 1341829 – Systemd-coredump doesn't save any core files - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1341829
15:25:45 <jkurik> #topic Bug 1341829 – Systemd-coredump doesn't save any core files
15:26:03 <sgallagh> The general criteria should be something like: "Failure to resolve this bug will result in unpleasantness for a subjectively large subset of users"
15:27:49 <sgallagh> Whee, starting with a tough one.
15:28:15 <jkurik> sgallagh: I can add the criteria to the process description, thanks
15:28:35 <sgallagh> Core dumps are a developer feature. Also, ABRT as far as I know also handles core dumps just fine.
15:28:37 <dustymabe> hey guys. sorry have been in a grooming meeting
15:28:49 <jkurik> dustymabe: Hi
15:28:52 <sgallagh> So from a *user* perspective, I'd lean towards -1 on this.
15:29:19 <jkurik> dustymabe: we have already started with evaluation of bugs
15:29:57 <sgallagh> From reading the comments, it seems likely that this will end up fixed as a dependency of other changes in Fedora Workstation, so I don't think we need to call it out as requiring attention.
15:30:04 <jkurik> my only concern is Michael's comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341829#c21
15:30:14 <sgallagh> So I'm going to go with -1
15:30:41 <sgallagh> jkurik: As Paul replied later: that approach isn't permissible
15:30:49 <jkurik> right
15:30:58 <jkurik> so I am -1 then as well
15:31:09 <sgallagh> So if that's a priority Workstation feature, it'll be fixed for that reason.
15:31:18 <linuxmodder> I'm with sgallagh  on that seems its getting needed attention
15:31:24 <linuxmodder> -1
15:31:58 <jkurik> ok, so we have -3; dustymabe would you comment on this bug as well ?
15:32:12 <dustymabe> jkurik: playing catch up
15:32:16 <dustymabe> i'll skip this one
15:32:24 <jkurik> ok
15:32:27 <sgallagh> (jkurik, are you doing secretary work today?)
15:32:42 <jkurik> sgallagh: yes, I will do it after the meeting
15:33:10 <sgallagh> Proposed: #agreed  It seems likely that this will end up fixed as a dependency of other changes in Fedora Workstation, so I don't think we need to call it out as requiring special attention
15:33:24 <linuxmodder> ack
15:33:26 <jkurik> sgallagh: thanks, you are faster then me :)
15:33:27 <jkurik> ack
15:33:40 <sgallagh> err, patch
15:33:45 <sgallagh> Proposed: #agreed  It seems likely that this will end up fixed as a dependency of other changes in Fedora Workstation, so we don't think we need to call it out as requiring special attention
15:33:47 <sgallagh> s/I/we/
15:34:15 <jkurik> ack anyway :)
15:34:25 <linuxmodder> ack on edit
15:34:33 <sgallagh> #agreed  It seems likely that this will end up fixed as a dependency of other changes in Fedora Workstation, so we don't think we need to call it out as requiring special attention
15:34:58 <jkurik> moving on...
15:35:04 <jkurik> .bug 1366897
15:35:05 <zodbot> jkurik: Bug 1366897 – Many apps crash in gdk_event_source_check when logging out of GNOME - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1366897
15:35:08 <jkurik> #topic Bug 1366897 – Many apps crash in gdk_event_source_check when logging out of GNOME
15:35:51 <sgallagh> This one is actually bordering on a blocker, IMHO
15:36:27 <sgallagh> (Not quite crossing it, but you can definitely see the blockers from here)
15:36:30 <sgallagh> +1
15:37:11 <jkurik> reading the bug, it seems to be complex, so it will need an attention
15:37:16 <jkurik> +1
15:38:14 <dustymabe> i'm +1
15:38:37 <linuxmodder> +1 especially with the successive boot issue
15:39:13 <linuxmodder> no longer seems as simple as the d/s reversal of patch 22 gad
15:40:25 <sgallagh> Proposed: #agreed This issue is complex and subtle and will impact the vast majority of Fedora GNOME users to at least some extent.
15:40:53 <linuxmodder> gnome@wayland imo not all gnome but otherwise ack
15:41:10 <sgallagh> OK, patch
15:41:31 <sgallagh> Proposed: #agreed This issue is complex and subtle and will impact the vast majority of Fedora GNOME Wayland session users to at least some extent.
15:41:46 <jkurik> ack
15:41:49 <linuxmodder> ack
15:42:13 <linuxmodder> as it seems on 25  gnome@x11 was absent this the other day when I tried testign other things
15:42:15 <sgallagh> dustymabe: Phrasing look good to you?
15:43:01 <sgallagh> #agreed This issue is complex and subtle and will impact the vast majority of Fedora GNOME Wayland session users to at least some extent.
15:43:08 <dustymabe> ack
15:43:15 <dustymabe> sgallagh: sorry, didn't realize I needed to do that
15:43:22 <jkurik> .bug 1389885
15:43:22 <zodbot> jkurik: Bug 1389885 – gnome-shell freeze when holding F11 key in gnome-terminal - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1389885
15:43:23 <jkurik> #topic Bug 1389885 – gnome-shell freeze when holding F11 key in gnome-terminal
15:44:10 <sgallagh> dustymabe: There's a two-phase process. First we agree whether a bug is or is not approved. Then we agree on the phrasing of the justification.
15:44:18 <dustymabe> is anyone able to repro this bug?
15:44:49 * jkurik is not using Gnome
15:45:07 <dustymabe> yeah I'm using i3wm, :(
15:45:12 <sgallagh> I'm on Wayland
15:45:44 <linuxmodder> not atm but looking
15:46:06 <sgallagh> I'm -1 on this unless investigation reveals that it has other triggers.
15:46:07 <jkurik> for me, this is not a typical usecase. Typically people do not hold F11 key
15:46:07 <dustymabe> I would say, that if the bug is legit it is something that needs to be fixed.. however what are the rules for what we choose to prioritize and what we don't ?
15:46:19 <sgallagh> dustymabe: You missed that part of the discussion :)
15:46:31 <sgallagh> (10:26:03 AM) sgallagh: The general criteria should be something like: "Failure to resolve this bug will result in unpleasantness for a subjectively large subset of users"
15:46:35 <dustymabe> jkurik: oh, so it's not a simple press of the f11 key? you have to hold it down?
15:46:36 <linuxmodder> sounds like some odd oom triggering to me
15:46:50 <jkurik> dustymabe: that is my understanding
15:47:00 <linuxmodder> i can test later and update ticket if the team is cool with that
15:47:07 <sgallagh> dustymabe: We want to keep this list *very* small so it has value.
15:47:21 <sgallagh> If it gets too big, it'll switch from a prioritized list to a meaningless wishlist
15:47:28 <linuxmodder> not sure why you'd 'hold'  f11 tho
15:47:52 <dustymabe> yeah. maybe we could -1 it today and ask for more clarity in the bug
15:47:53 <linuxmodder> seems very niche so I'm prelim -1
15:48:00 <jkurik> I am -1 as well
15:48:10 <linuxmodder> that is 3 or 4 -1s now then
15:48:50 <jkurik> sgallagh: what do you think ?
15:49:28 <sgallagh> Proposed: #agreed This bug is triggered with an unusual operation and is unlikely to affect a large number of users. If new investigation shows other methods of triggering, we may reconsider it.
15:49:33 <sgallagh> Sorry, I thought I said -1 above
15:49:46 <jkurik> ack
15:49:56 <linuxmodder> ack
15:49:58 <dustymabe> ack
15:50:27 <linuxmodder> you tped it out likely got missed sgallagh
15:51:07 <sgallagh> #agreed This bug is triggered with an unusual operation and is unlikely to affect a large number of users. If new investigation shows other methods of triggering, we may reconsider it.
15:51:27 <jkurik> and the last one....
15:51:30 <jkurik> .bug 1394755
15:51:30 <zodbot> jkurik: Bug 1394755 – can't log in into wayland session after upgrade from Fedora 24, frozen gray screen - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1394755
15:51:30 <jkurik> #topic Bug 1394755 – can't log in into wayland session after upgrade from Fedora 24, frozen gray screen
15:53:12 <linuxmodder> one sec on this one
15:54:24 <linuxmodder> the guest issue Southern_Gentlem  is dealing with in #fedora may be related
15:54:55 <sgallagh> I'm pretty clearly +1 on this and I suspect this may also need to be an F26 blocker down the road.
15:55:07 <sgallagh> (since it will probably also affect F24->F26 upgrades)
15:55:21 <jkurik> I would be +1 here as it seems to affect the user experience quite baddly
15:55:45 <dustymabe> yeah I agree I want it fixed but is this really affecting a large subset of users?
15:55:51 <dustymabe> wouldn't we have heard more about it?
15:55:59 <jkurik> sgallagh: I hoep it is fixed before we go so far in F26 to evaluate blockers
15:56:40 <linuxmodder> +1 with a empahasis on the seemingly valid workaround in comment 7
15:56:58 <linuxmodder> and comment 16
15:57:56 <sgallagh> dustymabe: Well, it's one of those bugs that basically breaks your system in such a way that you can't even report it with ABRT
15:58:05 <sgallagh> So it would be difficult to *know* how many people are hitting it
15:58:16 <dustymabe> sgallagh: I'm +1
15:58:27 <dustymabe> but I think more people would have complained if a ton of them were hitting it
15:58:31 <dustymabe> will be nice to know the root cause
15:58:34 <dustymabe> :)
15:58:36 <dustymabe> +1
15:58:58 <linuxmodder> they could ahve easily just used another de tho dustymabe
15:59:02 <sgallagh> jkurik: I need to head to another meeting. Can you write up the #agreed?
15:59:10 <linuxmodder> and chalked it up to a buggy install
15:59:19 <jkurik> sgallagh: yes and thanks for your help
15:59:23 <sgallagh> Any time
16:01:19 <jkurik> proposed #agreed This bug has been accepted to the list of Prioritized bugs as it badly affects user experience.
16:02:46 <linuxmodder> fyi seems mate is affected by a similiar issue to last bug we looked at definately a solid +1 now
16:03:18 <linuxmodder> in a vm as well gnome@wl and mate are affected
16:04:25 <linuxmodder> short f2f mtg soon for me too, may be semi afk
16:04:35 <jkurik> linuxmodder: perhaps we need to know the root cause first, as one fix might fix more bugs in case these are caused by the same bug
16:05:12 <linuxmodder> it appears from Southern_Gentlem 's tests that is may be gdm itself and or gnome@wl-session
16:05:22 <jkurik> linuxmodder, dustymabe: ack or patch ^^^ ?
16:05:28 <linuxmodder> but I'll look deeper tongith and update
16:05:37 <linuxmodder> ack
16:06:26 <jkurik> I am not sure we still have dustymabe, so considering as ack
16:06:27 <jkurik> #agreed This bug has been accepted to the list of Prioritized bugs as it badly affects user experience.
16:07:10 <jkurik> sgallagh, linuxmodder, dustymabe: thanks for the help with the first prioritization of bugs :)
16:07:19 <linuxmodder> jkurik,  no probs
16:07:20 <jkurik> #endmeeting