16:01:09 <adamw> #startmeeting Fedora QA meeting
16:01:09 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Feb 20 16:01:09 2023 UTC.
16:01:09 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:01:09 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
16:01:09 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:09 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_qa_meeting'
16:01:27 <travier> thanks!
16:01:59 * chromebittin is here
16:02:00 <adamw> #meetingname fedora-qa
16:02:00 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qa'
16:02:08 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:02:12 <adamw> chromebi1tin: hey, good to see you
16:03:29 * coremodule is here
16:04:16 <chromebittin> and can help with some testing again once i got a computer with a non broken CPU, my Haswell Refresh i7-4790K is being stupid (but my little brother has a spare Ryzen system) dad just need to help him move an 1tb m1 SSD to his new modern Intel system from 2020-2022 then i am getting his 2017-2018 system to replace my 2013-2014 one
16:04:38 <chromebittin> so been doing less testing for some weeks/months
16:04:51 <adamw> haha, the struggle is real
16:05:26 <adamw> my houseguest brought his motherboard+CPU with him but it wasn't working when he got here so he got a new one, i was hoping to steal his old one to upgrade my gaming/test box but it doesn't work for me either :/
16:05:31 <chromebittin> well not fun with a desktop that randomly freezes
16:05:42 <chromebittin> :(
16:06:10 <adamw> ah, that sucks
16:06:36 <adamw> kparal, sumantro, lruzicka, tflink (@tflink:fedora.im): anyone else around for meeting fun times?
16:07:43 <chromebittin> did hear in the Fedora Flatpak meeting that i was in for a bit as i was early for this one next composes will get GNOME 44 Beta :) also Kernel 6.2 released upstream any plans for test days? (but maybe talk about that when we get there)
16:08:00 <chromebittin> amigadave been hard at working packing the gnome 44 beta
16:08:12 * tflink[m] is here
16:09:19 <adamw> excellent, you count
16:09:19 <adamw> welp, let's get rolling
16:09:20 <adamw> i have a feeling there's something for the Stuff Adam Forgot To Do list
16:09:24 <adamw> #topic Previous meeting follow-up
16:09:45 * kparal is here
16:10:11 * SumantroMukherje is on phone but here
16:10:44 <chromebittin> 16:37:56 <adamw> #action adamw to send out mail asking folks to vote on blockers in tickets
16:10:47 <chromebittin> sending emails?
16:11:14 <adamw> #info "adamw to send out mail asking folks to vote on blockers in tickets" - yeah, uh, I forgot. I'll do it later! I promise! this is also what I keep saying about all those boxes in the garage
16:11:23 <adamw> #action adamw to send out mail asking folks to vote on blockers in tickets
16:12:16 <adamw> #topic Fedora 38 status
16:13:03 <adamw> #info F38 has branched, openQA update test gating is enabled, beta freeze starts in ~22 hours
16:13:32 <chromebittin> GNOME 44 Beta in composes later this week
16:13:35 <adamw> we have one proposed blocker and one accepted blocker for beta, so not too scary
16:13:41 <coremodule> adamw, does the freeze mean we will start blocker review meetings next week?
16:13:48 <coremodule> or this week?
16:13:54 <adamw> chromebi1tin: not without a freeze exception it won't be. ;)
16:14:21 <chromebittin> coremodule: think its ongoing right now according to: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fridays-fedora-facts-2023-07/
16:14:31 <adamw> coremodule: i tend to time the blocker meetings more around how many proposed blockers there are than a strict timing, but yeah, closer we get to release, more likely we need one
16:14:34 <chromebittin> adamw: oh ok, guess i did missunderstood kalev then
16:15:56 <coremodule> okay, cool. just trying to see if ill be on pto for the first one and someone else will get the joy of being the secretary :)
16:16:02 <chromebittin> adamw: so not any blocker meeting today?
16:16:04 <adamw> if folks can vote on the proposed blocker at https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1033 it'd be great, though it does seem a bit subtle, i need to talk to kde team about it
16:16:21 <adamw> chromebi1tin: i didn't announce one for today, no. there's only one proposed beta blocker to vote on
16:16:27 <chromebittin> ah alright
16:16:46 <adamw> there are four proposed finals, though. so i guess if we don't deal with those by ticket votes, i'll schedule a meeting next week
16:17:01 <SumantroMukherje> Works for me!
16:18:01 <adamw> so, things don't look too bad for beta, but we do have a lurking issue for final which kparal has wisely started making noise about early: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878
16:18:24 <adamw> it's on the proposed final blocker list, but it's a pretty big squishy "issue" so i thought it was worth calling out directly so people are aware and we can talk about anything we want to do about it
16:18:55 <kparal> ngompa asked me to file a fesco blocker proposal, but I'm waiting for the moment
16:18:55 <adamw> basically, the issue is this: in f38 the crypto policy is tightened such that dnf/rpm don't accept SHA-1 signed packages by default. unfortunately this means if you have any already installed, you get a pretty bad experience, and some very popular third-party packages are SHA-1 signed
16:19:16 <kparal> (it's not just about SHA-1)
16:19:19 <adamw> kparal: in a way i feel like that might be the way to go
16:19:39 <adamw> oh, it's not?
16:19:39 <kparal> well DSA and similar as well
16:19:46 <kparal> I know almost nothing about crypto
16:20:02 <kparal> so I'm just waiting the acronyms like I understand them
16:20:04 <kparal> *waiving
16:20:09 <adamw> ah ok, so more than just one algorithm but basically the same issue
16:20:12 <adamw> heh
16:20:38 <kparal> yes, Chrome repo key is also signed with DSA, so allowing just SHA1 doesn't help
16:20:42 <adamw> it's just which scary bit of math is used to do the 'this is really the same thing / really signed by this person' magic. some of those maths aren't scary enough any more, apparently.
16:21:33 <adamw> so, yeah. i kinda feel like neal might have the right idea
16:22:07 <chromebittin> guess its not as easy as telling Google to sign with SHA-256 or SHA-512 :p
16:22:10 <adamw> dealing with this through the regular blocker process feels a bit tricky. like we don't have an obvious criterion for it, so we'd have to judo one, and if we judo one, we're gonna get into a dumb debate about what needs to change to satisfy the criterion
16:22:16 <adamw> whereas if we just send it through fesco, fesco can say exactly what they want to happen
16:22:17 <kparal> right, I'm just waiting if somebody tells me that I have it all wrong. If nobody does, asking fesco might be a good move
16:22:25 <adamw> sounds reasonable
16:23:24 <adamw> my spitball idea would be some kind of "forward only" scenario - the requirement would only be enforced for *newly installed* packages, existing packages signed with older keys would be grandparented in
16:23:25 <adamw> but no idea how practical that is on a technical level
16:23:40 <kparal> Panu responded to a similar request that it's complicated
16:23:46 <adamw> fun
16:23:50 <adamw> isn't complicated what we pay him for? :D
16:24:51 <kparal> I asked for his opinion in the bug report, let's see
16:25:11 <adamw> it does lead to the question "what about updates", too
16:25:33 <adamw> do you let existing SHA-1 packages be updated to new versions that are still SHA-1 signed?
16:25:46 <adamw> anyhoo. yeah, just wanted to flag it up and let people know where we're going with it currently
16:25:51 <adamw> anyone have any thoughts/ideas around that?
16:26:32 <kparal> poke Google and Microsoft, if somebody has long enough fingers
16:27:27 <neil> i'm not sure how long they are, but i'll poke someone at the Googs
16:27:49 * neil goes back to lurking
16:27:57 <adamw> yeah, obviously it's going to help any resolution to this if we can get them to update the damn packages asap at least
16:28:22 <kparal> thanks
16:28:31 <kparal> neil: you can also reference this summary: https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/popular-third-party-rpms-fail-to-install-update-remove-due-to-security-policies-verification/31594
16:28:46 <neil> ty. will do :)
16:29:31 <adamw> #info kparal wisely foresaw that tightened package crypto requirements would cause major problems with popular third-party packages, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878 , this is currently going through the normal blocker process but we may well send it through the fesco blocker process if nobody speaks up to say our understanding is incorrect
16:29:56 <adamw> alright, anything else on f38?
16:30:43 <kparal> nothing here
16:31:04 <chromebittin> not from me
16:31:20 <SumantroMukherje> Nothing here
16:31:25 <adamw> #topic Test Day / community event status
16:31:31 <chromebittin> SumantroMukherje take it away
16:31:39 <adamw> indeed
16:31:52 <chromebittin> also any Kernel 6.2 test days planned?
16:32:33 <SumantroMukherje> I waa sick and didn't check the QA tracker . I will in a few hours.
16:32:54 <SumantroMukherje> For the kernel 6.2 though , jforbes:  do you have any update??
16:33:01 <SumantroMukherje> We have a lot of test days olanned
16:33:06 <SumantroMukherje> * planned
16:33:11 <chromebittin> just landed in Koji for F38 Branched and Rawhide
16:33:38 <SumantroMukherje> And we will be going through changeset shortly!!
16:33:49 <SumantroMukherje> I intend to do an onboarding soon
16:34:00 <jforbes> SumantroMukherje: other than https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/issue/729 ?
16:35:01 <chromebittin> ah thanks jforbes was that i was looking for :)
16:35:07 <SumantroMukherje> Nah this is the one!!
16:35:46 <adamw> #info sumantro has been off sick so we don't have all dates and details nailed down yet, but several test days are in the pipeline, including GNOME, i18n, Clour, CoreOS, IoT, kernel 6.2 and dnf5
16:35:50 <adamw> er, cloud.
16:35:57 <SumantroMukherje> Yess
16:36:13 <SumantroMukherje> Probably the anaconda web installer  as well
16:36:19 <adamw> #undo
16:36:19 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by adamw at 16:35:46 : sumantro has been off sick so we don't have all dates and details nailed down yet, but several test days are in the pipeline, including GNOME, i18n, Clour, CoreOS, IoT, kernel 6.2 and dnf5
16:36:40 <adamw> #info sumantro has been off sick so we don't have all dates and details nailed down yet, but several test days are in the pipeline, including GNOME, i18n, Cloud, CoreOS, IoT, kernel 6.2, dnf5, and probably the anaconda web installer
16:36:50 <adamw> #info we're also hoping to run an onboarding session soon
16:37:34 <SumantroMukherje> That's all from my side
16:38:01 <adamw> thanks sumantro
16:38:09 <adamw> any notes/questions on this topic?
16:38:54 <kparal> I just noticed this ticket and it's somewhat related: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/359
16:39:38 <kparal> I guess we should discuss with Allan there and find a way to make GNOME testing smoother this cycle
16:39:43 * SumantroMukherje logs the ticket number
16:39:51 <chromebittin> being discussed in #fedora-workstation atm
16:40:03 <adamw> yeah, that's the one i was asking you to look at when you get a minute, sumantro
16:40:13 <adamw> if you've got a lot on your plate, we could spread the load a little too
16:40:14 <SumantroMukherje> kparal: Last release i wrote down a bunch of test cases.
16:40:34 <SumantroMukherje> Adamw , i will take it!
16:40:53 <kparal> I think the one where Sumantro Mukherjee is requested is this one: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/329
16:40:58 <adamw> there is an outstanding suggestion by me to go through the results from the last test week and update some test cases, there were several 'bug' reports which were clearly the result of test cases that needed updating
16:41:08 <adamw> oh yeah, there are two
16:42:03 <adamw> kparal: on the 359 topic, are you planning to do a round of torture testing gnome apps again?>
16:42:18 <adamw> sumantro: wdyt about the idea of dropping the GNOME RC test week? it does make sense to me
16:42:45 <kparal> adamw: I never plan to do that, it just happens when I'm trying to verify one fix or another 😄
16:43:06 <adamw> #info there are a couple of outstanding workstation wg tickets that relate to our testing events: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/359 and https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/329
16:43:16 <kparal> I'd like to find those bugs earlier this time, but you know how it works...
16:43:18 <adamw> kparal: i guess what i'm saying is, if we're gonna do it let's do it soon, so they don't get mad at us :P
16:43:24 <SumantroMukherje> adamw @adamwill:fedora.im:  like make it a day or make it go away ? ;)
16:43:37 <adamw> some of the bugs from previous cycles are still outstanding, i believe
16:44:07 <kparal> there is always something more important than gnome-photos, to the very last day 😄 I'll try
16:44:27 <chromebittin> gnome-music ;)
16:45:10 <adamw> kparal: or you could just try *even less* and not launch them at all ;)
16:45:10 <kparal> 🤔
16:45:23 <SumantroMukherje> That's actually a real problem ,  bugs not getting fixed and then we pushing release after release
16:45:46 <adamw> yeah, well, it's a "let's agree on what really must get fixed" problem, i guess
16:46:02 <adamw> i asked workstation wg to invite us to the meeting where they discuss the ticket
16:46:07 <SumantroMukherje> Yes that works
16:46:30 <chromebittin> will miss it on the bus on my way home from new $dayjob when their meetings is
16:47:51 <adamw> alrighty
16:47:53 <adamw> #topic Open floor
16:47:56 <adamw> any other business, folks?
16:48:15 * chromebittin does not have anything
16:49:25 * SumantroMukherje met Rishi and we talked about writing the toolbx criteria for WS  WG
16:49:41 * SumantroMukherje also needs channel rights for #test-day:fedoraproject.org
16:49:50 <SumantroMukherje> Pleas bless!!
16:50:55 <adamw> who needs channel rights? you do? rishi does?
16:51:06 <adamw> and, er, what rights?
16:51:11 <adamw> irc? matrix?
16:51:17 * rishi[m] waves
16:51:19 <adamw> i suppose this is a bit of a grey area :D
16:51:22 <adamw> hey rishi
16:51:23 <chromebittin> guessing Matrix
16:51:50 <rishi[m]> I am just lurking after the Flatpak SIG met.  I didn't realize that you guys will want to discuss Toolbx today.  :)
16:52:12 * rishi[m] is on Matrix right now
16:52:25 <rishi[m]> But I don't think I need any rights.  :P
16:53:24 <SumantroMukherje> I do adamw @adamwill:fedora.im:
16:53:26 <adamw> rishi (@rishi:gnome.org): it's the open floor section, anything goes :P
16:53:32 <adamw> thanks to you and sumantro for working on that
16:53:52 <adamw> sumantro: ah, okay. matrix side? irc side?
16:54:00 <adamw> for setting topics and things?
16:54:07 <adamw> i don't actually know how that works with the bridging
16:55:09 <rishi[m]> Sure.  Did you have anything specific to ask me?
16:55:37 <rishi[m]> I know that sumantro wanted to be a co-maintainer for container/fedora-toolbox and rpms/toolbox.
16:55:54 <adamw> can't think of anything right now
16:56:16 <rishi[m]> Since he isn't in the 'packager' group, yet, I need to dig up the process to get him in through the co-maintainer fast track.
16:57:21 <adamw> ah, yeah, i don't remember how that goes either
16:59:41 <SumantroMukherje> <adamw> "sumantro: ah, okay. matrix side?..." <- Yea that
16:59:46 <SumantroMukherje> For setting topics
17:00:11 <chromebittin> time
17:00:16 <adamw> alright, i'll see if i can talk to the matrix admins about how that all works
17:00:18 <SumantroMukherje> rishi[m]: I guess we gotta do a lottt of RTFM
17:00:20 <adamw> and yes, that's time
17:00:40 <kparal> ⏰
17:00:43 <adamw> #action adamw to read up on how the matrix/irc bridging works for topic setting, and get sumantro appropriate rights to set topics on both sides in the test day channel
17:00:56 <chromebittin> +1
17:02:06 <SumantroMukherje> +1
17:03:36 <chromebittin> endmeeting ?
17:04:20 <adamw> yup
17:04:21 <adamw> thanks, everyone
17:04:21 <adamw> #endmeeting