<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:25
!startmeeting F42 Beta Go/No-Go meeting
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:02:27
Meeting started at 2025-03-13 17:02:25 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:02:27
The Meeting name is 'F42 Beta Go/No-Go meeting'
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:02:55
!hi
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:02:56
!topic Roll Call
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:00
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:03:00
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:03
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:03:26
Hi
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:04:05
Go/No-Go meeting!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:04:38
We will give it a few mins for folks to arrive
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:05:02
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:03
Adam Williamson (adamwill) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:05:04
and by a few, I mean ... two
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:05:05
morning
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:05:16
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:17
Christopher Boni (boniboyblue)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:06:16
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:18
Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:06:55
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:57
Kashyap Chamarthy (kashyapc)
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:07:11
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:07:12
Matthew Miller (mattdm) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:29
!topic Purpose of this meeting:
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:42
!info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F42 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:07:53
!info This is determined in a few ways:
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:06
!info 1. Release candidate compose is available
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:21
!info 2. No remaining blocker bugs
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:31
!info 3. Test matrices are fully completed
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:39
!info 4. Fedora IoT and CoreOS are ready
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:08:50
!topic Current status - RC
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:09:06
!hi
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:07
Do we have a release candidate to discuss?
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:09:11
Geraldo S. Simião Kutz (geraldosimiao) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:13
yes we do!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:21
always a good start :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:09:24
we are on candidate 1.4
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:09:54
!info The RC is 1.4
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:06
!topic Current Status - Blockers
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:27
!link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/42/beta/buglist
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:10:27
we have some of those too!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:42
!info Fedora QA will lead this section of the meeting
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:51
over to you and yours, @ada§
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:10:56
over to you and yours, @adamw
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:03
i've been renamed by elon musk!?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:05
alllrighty
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:11:20
not yet, just my pudgy fingers :p
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:30
we have a couple of blocker proposals, so let's start with those
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:37
!topic (2351848) unable to perform an mdraid installation with Fedora-Workstation-Live-42_Beta-1.4.x86_64.iso
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:37
!info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, POST
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:37
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1792
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:11:37
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351848
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:12:03
so this isn't so much 'absolutely cannot do a RAID install' - Kamil Páral and I have both managed to do it - but 'one perfectly plausible way of doing it doesn't work'
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:12:08
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:12:10
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:05
i can't watch the video without risking my laptop hanging (sigh, amd) but from the comments, i think the trigger here is 'not setting the mount point in the storage editor, but trying to set it from 'assign mount points' after creating it in the storage editor'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:13
can anyone who can watch videos without potential doom confirm? :D
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:13:21
adamw: Excuse my question: how many "perfectly plausible ways" are there to do it? :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:28
i can't watch the video without risking my laptop hanging (sigh, amd) but from the comments, i think the trigger here is 'not setting the mount point in the storage editor, but trying to set it from 'assign mount points' after creating the device in the storage editor'
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:13:52
lots?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:14:05
i am watching the video..
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:14:08
too many, for $REASONS
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:14:25
Okay, I can watch the video and it works fine. It's 23 seconds.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:14:46
yeah, it's not assigning a mount point at first then trying to assign it after
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:15:02
Yes, the part is created w/o any info. it's just "Create Partition -> click Create button"
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:15:20
Kevin beat me to it 🙂
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:29
nirik so she came out of storage editor then went into the mount point assignment ui, right?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:15:37
yes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:40
okay.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:54
so yeah. if you do that, it blows up. if you set a mount point in the storage editor, it works.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:15:58
is that a beta blocker? hmmm!
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:16:04
then they go back thru anaconda and the UI glitches out...
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:16:50
initially showing / /boot and /boot/efi, then flickering for a bit and showing ONLY / and /boot/efi (no /boot)
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:16:56
I would only use the way it works to set it up. When creating it, assign mount points right away.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:16:58
the criteria say "the installer must be able to: ... Create mount points backed by ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions ... Assign mount points to existing storage volumes"
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:17:19
which maybe seems like a separate bug?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:19
lruzicka unfortunately there isn't a neon sign in the installer saying THIS IS THE WAY THAT WORKS, DON'T USE THE OTHER WAY :D
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:17:29
.. yet
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:17:37
Is it likely to be fixed by final?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:41
oh, yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:43
we have the fix already
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:17:50
if so, commonbugs (and a light one at that imho)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:17:56
practical question is, do we slip a week to fix it for beta
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:18:00
so, I think this is a blocker by the critera. (But then I will propose we waive it on the 'too late' clause)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:09
so, i would say this is a conditional violation of the criteria
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:18:18
The upstream fix (a one-liner): https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/6261/files
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:18:24
the installer *can* do the thing. but it can also fail to do the thing. it depends on the exact steps.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:19:03
given that this is a new UI and that's always gonna have teething troubles, i'm willing to set a slightly lower bar for it, and vote -1 on this, we can commonbugs it
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:19:06
The only thing I am saying is that if can be done, we document it and fix for final. Katerina suggested to fix it for final.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:19:46
sure, I'm good with -1 and common bugs too... saying it's a corner case, etc?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:20:00
ack for that
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:20:12
ack that, too
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:20:16
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:20:19
fix for final, leave beta as is
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:20:27
Ack
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:20:40
Yeah, I think such kind of "RAID" installations are often done on "enterprise distros"
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:20:42
fwiw - ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:00
sigh i walk away for one minute and people forget the protocol!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:05
we do +1 / -1 first, then acks. :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:22:17
counting acks as -1s...
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:22:36
-1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:23:02
-1
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:23:10
-1
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:23:14
-1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:23:14
Adam, just be glad I didn't say "I +1 the -1 proposal"
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:23:16
-1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:23:17
-1
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:23:40
-1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:23:56
proposed !agreed 2351848 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we decided this is a conditional violation (the installer *can* do everything the criteria say if you hold it right, but it fails if you hold it wrong). Given webui is new and we have to accept some level of teething troubles for it in a Beta, we decided this is not severe enough to be a blocker, so it's rejected
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:24:06
!fire Neil Hanlon
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:24:12
ack (both)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:24:18
dangit somebody needs to implement that command already
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:24:22
*finds a bankers box*
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:24:22
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:24:27
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:24:32
ack
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:24:42
Ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:24:56
ack
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:25:50
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:15
!agreed 2351848 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) - we decided this is a conditional violation (the installer can do everything the criteria say if you hold it right, but it fails if you hold it wrong). Given webui is new and we have to accept some level of teething troubles for it in a Beta, we decided this is not severe enough to be a blocker, so it's rejected
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:26:24
Ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:26
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1790
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:26
!info Proposed Blocker, mdadm, ASSIGNED
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:26
!topic (2325906) [WebUI] Can't reuse existing RAID partitioning
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:26
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:32
this one seems rather worse to me
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:26:38
i'm somewhat inclined to +1 it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:29:29
anyone else?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:30:04
I did'nt understood how Inie reproduced this on beta 1.4
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:30:12
yeah, leaning +1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:30:30
because the original ticket is from november
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:30:35
also leaning +1 on that. seems it could even have some sort of interaction with the last one we discussed..
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:30:51
reluctantly +1
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:31:14
+1
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:31:26
I'm not enough of a RAID user to have a strong opinion. But there seems to be an easy reproducer: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906#c15
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:31:38
geraldosimiao it just never got fixed, i think. i think i actually ran into it a couple of months ago too and mentioned it on some other bug/ticket
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:31:54
+1
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:32:07
ok, sad ☹️
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:32:14
+1 then
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:32:40
hum. so does that mean we can't waive it as too late? :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:32:42
i would be curious to know if this reproduces on the KDE live, it sounds like it would
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:33:25
anyway we're only at Early Target date BTW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:33:31
hmm, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2325906#c9 is kinda interesting - this is broken in f41 too, apparently?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:33:34
no were at 1
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:33:41
we missed early target already
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:33:46
tbh i'm a bit confused how we have mdadm 4.3 when there's no such tarball on kernel.org https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:34:04
ohhh, so we already do release with this bug
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:34:07
oh nvm, i'm just blind 🙂
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:34:29
0.4.x != 4.x
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:34:43
geraldosimiao apparently, but it might be nice to confirm
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:34:53
I'm inclined to ask for a waiver if it exists in 41
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:34:58
what does another week mean for Final? Rn, we are in FF on April 1st (no joke!), which theoretically will only leave a week for beta to have been released
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:35:08
Well, i would also like to point out that this bug was never proposed a blocker until now, so it is sort of late blocker.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:35:18
good point
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:35:24
if we block on this bug and delay beta another week, we should see if we need to adjust final timeframes
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:04
so yeah, i can reproduce this trying to reinstall f42 over an f42-created raid
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:36:10
it means one week less for people "in the wild" do tests
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:14
now trying f41
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:36:31
If it's realistically reproducible with F41, this counts more as a low-prio "regression", no? Instead of a "blocker"? I'm just going by intuition ere, and not any criteria docs. :D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:36:59
kashyapc it isn't always that simple, but we factor it in
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:14
there is no hard rule that it's not a blocker just because we didn't find it last cycle
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:37:19
If we have to slip here, we lose the early target for final. Still could be on schedule.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:37:35
ack
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:37:39
I know, but I hate to block on such things unless they're widely catastrophic.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:37:44
i'm starting an f41 live install now
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:37:49
Aoife Moloney: we need to bring back Prioritized Bugs process
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:05
one factor here is that we don't usually test complex storage cases on live
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:09
we usually test them on netinst/dvd
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:20
that's changed for this cycle because webui is *only* on live
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:38:23
Yeah, fair point. I just thought if it's serious enough, we'd hear loud-enough complaints. But point taken.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:40
kashyapc storage is always the hardest thing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:44
because everyone does storage different
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:38:53
it's hard to know what to decide is Important Enough
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:39:21
Not a consolation, but even in virtualization world, many nasty bugs come from storage :D
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:39:54
Not a consolation, but even in the virtualization world, many nasty bugs come from storage :D
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:40:11
the entire problem is files.. we just need no/less files... ;)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:40:21
yes.
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:40:35
But isn't everything a file? ;-)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:40:54
everything's a file _descriptor_ ... 🙂
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:41:44
I'm +1 on the blocker for this, fwiw. I think installing atop an existing raid is probably a fairly normal situation especially for the Server WG folks, e.g.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:41:51
I'm (still) +1 on the blocker for this, fwiw. I think installing atop an existing raid is probably a fairly normal situation especially for the Server WG folks, e.g.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:42:37
well, note that this is just workstation no? or is this gtk anaconda?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:42:40
huh, running an f41 install over an f42 existing raid hits this bug *even if i wipe the existing raid as part of the install*
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:42:58
yeah, this is webui. so workstation only
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:42:59
Neil Hanlon i'm not sure this fails on Server
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:05
no, this isn't webui
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:09
it affects gtkui too
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:15
but i think it may be *live* only
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:43:18
the subject on the bug is wrong then
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:25
live is very different for existing storage
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:43:31
yeah, we should update that, but it's discussed in the comments
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:43:44
Ah, i see. Sorta forgot theres that split with webui now too
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:44:00
well, f41 live (using gtk anaconda) reproduces...
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:44:00
context switching failed successfully
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:44:03
yeah, it's an annoying conflation of things
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:45:32
so where do we want to go here?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:48
i'm still testing scenarios
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:45:53
wanna confirm whether f41 server is affected
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:46:41
neil has already given cookies to kevin during the F41 timeframe
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:46:55
proposal: waive it as late
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:47:00
farribeiro gave a cookie to kevin. They now have 720 cookies, 28 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:47:04
as mattdm said
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:47:12
well, we have to either accept or reject it first.
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:47:25
yeah
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:47:28
your right
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:47:32
yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:47:37
yeah, so it looks like the case here is 'broken on live f41 and f42; works on server f41 (and probably f42 but didn't test yet)'
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:47:54
Accept, waive, fix
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:47:55
so, based on that: votes?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:48:07
+1 blocker; wave, fix.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
17:48:11
waive, even
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:48:13
i think i'm +1 on the whole. though at some point we may need some kind of 'complex storage might not always work on live' get-out clause
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:48:15
-1 blocker
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:49:58
+1 I guess... (but I will vote to waive on too late later ;)
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:50:03
+1 blocker but waive
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:50:34
ok
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:52:11
proposed !agreed 2325906 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "the installer must be able to: ... Correctly interpret, and modify as described below any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions ... Remove existing storage volumes ... Assign mount points to existing storage volumes", on live images (non-live seem unaffected)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:52:55
a feature that is neede on server, works fine on server install, but don't at a workstation media. seems fine :|
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:11
who said you can't use raid on a workstation?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:53:12
aack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:13
i did for years
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:53:24
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:53:24
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:27
RAID-5 set of 3 SSDs, for some redundancy
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:53:29
Ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:53:33
its possible
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:53:34
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:53:48
!agreed 2325906 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of "the installer must be able to: ... Correctly interpret, and modify as described below any disk with a valid ms-dos or gpt disk label and partition table containing ... software RAID arrays at RAID levels 0, 1 and 5 containing ext4 partitions ... Remove existing storage volumes ... Assign mount points to existing storage volumes", on live images (non-live seem unaffected)
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:53:52
RAID5 🤮
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:04
eh, i had three SSDs. :P
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:07
anyhoo
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:15
with that, we have two accepted blockers
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:54:17
no one, I was just thinking.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:24
uhh. Aoife Moloney do you remember when we do the waiving thing?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:27
is it now or later?
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:54:31
hot swap?
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:54:35
alright, next step
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:54:46
I...do not :(
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:54:59
looking at the script, i guess now makes the most sense
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:55:03
maybe after accepted blockers, or as part of this section?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:08
because if we don't waive them, we should just skip to no-go
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:17
so yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:20
let's go to considering accepted blockers
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:55:23
yeah, this is true
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:39
since we still have the topic on this one...
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
17:55:39
Ill add that as a note in the SOP
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:55:43
yeah, now is good.
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:55:49
yeah
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:55:53
!info the idea of waiving this blocker has come up, so let's discuss that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:56:59
so for anyone who needs a refresher: the process here is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process#Exceptional_cases
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:57:19
I'd propose this for the last minute exception.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:57:54
there are two justifications under which we can waive blockers: "Last minute blocker bugs" ("there are some circumstances in which we believe it is not sensible to delay an otherwise-impending release to fix a bug which would usually be accepted as a blocker if discovered earlier") and "Difficult to fix blocker bugs" ("bugs which it may not be practical to fix within a reasonable time frame for the release to be made")
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:57:58
i would actually say this fits both
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
17:58:06
Please waive this blocker. It's not _great_, but it's relatively uncommon and has existed for a while, and also _let's ship this thing_. :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:58:21
it was certainly proposed last minute, and it looks hard to fix, since it's been sitting around for months and we've had zero input from any mdadm dev
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:58:43
(although that might mean it's *easy* to fix but they just haven't been bothered, i guess...)
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:58:47
Yeah, reading up that criteria, it definitely fits it. As it's a "latent blocker" (if that's a phrase)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
17:58:58
i'm in favour of waiving it, given all the circumstances (especially that it's already broken in f41)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:59:05
yeah, unknown how easy to fix, but it's definitely last minute. ;)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
17:59:18
+1 waive it
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
17:59:27
last minute, +1 waive this blocker
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:59:35
+1 for waivig, FWIW
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
17:59:39
Waive +1
<@kashyapc:fedora.im>
17:59:42
+1 for waiving, FWIW
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
17:59:48
+1
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:00
proposed !agreed 2325906 - waived to Fedora 42 Final under both the "Last minute" and "Difficult to fix" justifications
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:00:16
ack
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
18:00:23
ack
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:00:29
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:00:36
ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:00:36
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:51
!agreed 2325906 - waived to Fedora 42 Final under both the "Last minute" and "Difficult to fix" justifications
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:54
okay
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:00:58
so let's consider the other accepted blocker
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:01:00
yay!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:05
!topic (2351459) F42 Beta release blocking images are oversize
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:05
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2351459
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:05
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/1788
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:05
!info Accepted Blocker, distribution, NEW
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:17
!info let's also consider waiving this one
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:01:26
yeah, unfortunate, but I think we should waive this one too...
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:01:47
+1 to waive
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:01:54
+1 waive
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:54
so, a few factors here: there is supposed to be a robot filing bugs automatically when images are oversize, and because of that, i don't eyeball the matrices for it any more. unfortunately, the robot's API key expired, so it didn't file any bugs
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:01:59
so we came across this quite late
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:02:06
+1 waive
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:30
another factor: the size limit in question isn't a very significant one
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:02:34
+1 waive now, fix robot, drop blocker critierion
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:02:35
pesky robots.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:02:58
we do still have a couple of limits tied to physical media - anything that's at 4.7GB is DVD size - but the one we're exceeding here is 1 power-of-ten GB, which is fairly notional
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:03:17
in 2025, blocking a relase based on 1999 cd size media
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:19
okay, there used to be 1G USB sticks. are we super worried about whether anyone can write the aarch64 server boot ISO to one? nah.
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
18:03:21
Waive +1 under last minute blocker
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:44
i'm not in favor of dropping the criterion, we have perfectly fine ways to handle this when the frickin' robot works
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:03:50
(fix the size or bump the limit)
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:03:54
yeah a lot of the branded-swag USB sticks were 1GB
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:04:05
I have a whole pile of 2GB ones in the nostalgia bin
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:04:19
yeah think the smallest i still have is 2G
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:04:28
2GB is a fine limit
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:04:39
anyway, thats for another meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:05:27
proposed !agreed 2351459 - waived to Fedora 42 Final under the 'last minute' justification. this was discovered late due to robot malfunctions. in the usual course of events we would have discovered this weeks ago and either squished the image a bit or just bumped the size limit. since this is not a very significant size limit - nobody in the meeting has seen a 1GB USB stick lately - we're comfortable waiving it
<@x3mboy:fedora.im>
18:05:33
In 2GB you can put the netinstaller, no?
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:05:43
can
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
18:05:51
ack
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:05:51
yeah, it's just barely over 1G, it'd fit 2G easy.
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
18:05:52
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:05:53
I am +1 to this proposal and also, ack
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:06:01
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:06:08
ack
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:06:12
(I have forgotten what you want first adamw already)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:22
!agreed 2351459 - waived to Fedora 42 Final under the 'last minute' justification. this was discovered late due to robot malfunctions. in the usual course of events we would have discovered this weeks ago and either squished the image a bit or just bumped the size limit. since this is not a very significant size limit - nobody in the meeting has seen a 1GB USB stick lately - we're comfortable waiving it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:39
+1s first, acks after the proposal
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:46
ok, so with that:
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:06:50
ack :p
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:06:53
!topic Blocker status
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:20
!info we have two unaddressed blockers in the current candidate, but both are waived
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:07:25
aaand we can move on i believe
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:07:48
exellent, tests next
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:08:09
!info Current status - test matrices
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:08:28
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_42_Test_Results
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:09:52
!link https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/42/
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:10:06
everyone go 'oooo' at the shiny new testcase_stats layout by lruzicka
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:10:21
I actually did hahaha
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:10:29
lruzicka: ++
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:10:30
also everybody please tell me if any of the results seem wildly wrong because i just fixed a bug in them an hour ago and i'm hoping i did it right
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:10:31
amoloney gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 31 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:10:38
oooooo
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:10:43
@lruzicka ++
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
18:10:45
Thanks
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:10:46
neil gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 32 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:10:55
but on the whole, we're looking out for red boxes. red is bad
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:10:59
seriously, oooooh
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:11:04
lrzuicka++
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:11:05
*pokes his openqa people to upgrade*
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:05
Sorry, but Fedora Accounts user 'lrzuicka' does not exist
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:11:12
as usual, the cloud ec2 tests aren't done yet. i was gonna do them before the meeting but got stuck fixing the bug in testcase_stats. :P
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:16
aggraxis gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 33 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:11:36
Neil Hanlon this is not actually part of openqa at all. i just host it on that box cos it's a box with an http server on it that i can put stuff on. :P
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
18:11:40
looks like Cloud is not really getting tested?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:11:50
Neil Hanlon it's part of https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relval
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:12:04
geraldosimiao gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 34 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:12:05
mattdm this is how it goes every cycle, it never gets done, i do it in a hurry during the meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:12:11
and we keep saying we're going to automate it and never get round to it
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:12:17
ooh, thanks 🙂
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:12:19
so, let me just fire up my aws console...
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:12:25
farribeiro gave a cookie to lruzicka. They now have 35 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:12:37
Neil Hanlon it is *highly* tied to our crazy wiki test case management system...thing
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:13:24
outside of cloud we're looking mostly good
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:13:40
it appears nobody's tried aarch64 ISOs on real hardware though
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:13:40
ack, still.. cool 🙂
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:13:49
can anyone do that? you need an aarch64 test box that can boot generic UEFI ISOs
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:14:29
i can do that on an Ampere box... for a few months more at least
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:14:52
let me find my ipxe config
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:14:56
I don't have aarch64 hardware... 😢
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:15:06
huh, is the line for desktop app basic others swapped between workstation and kde? ie, I think it's passed on workstation, no one tested on kde?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:15:16
it's supposed to be tested from a usb key but hey, if ipxe boot works it's probably fine
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:15:29
nirik oh god that sounds a lot like what i was trying to fix / might have broken in other cases
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:15:46
yeah, I think they are swapped in other cases too...
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:15:50
I've recently installed via pxe on an aarch64 box. I can do the usb test as well
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:16:22
nirik no, actually, it looks right
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:16:25
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_42_Beta_1.2_Desktop#Release-blocking_desktops:_x86_/_x86_64
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:16:39
geraldo filled that out for KDE, there's no result for Workstation there
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:17:07
pwhalen thanks, if you can do that while i AWS...
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:17:45
Ill set the info for the meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:17:58
agh god the amis are missing, why are the amis missing
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:18:08
huh... I was looking at the QA:Testcase_workstation_core_applications line...
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:18:09
are there any other tests to be/could be done too?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:19:04
side note: not sure how much sense it makes to test workstation core applications, they're mostly stuck at gnome 47 versions while gnome 48 update is fresh and only in "testing" repos
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
18:19:06
yeah, didn't tested this on work indeed.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:19:07
was it the Cloud aarch64 ISO we need to test on HW, @adamw ?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:19:24
err, wait, those don't have ISOs. ignoreme 😃
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:19:45
Neil Hanlon https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_42_Beta_1.4_Installation#Default_boot_and_install_(aarch64) - Server
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:19:51
DVD or netinst, either one would be fine
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:19:53
*still learning this qa stuff*
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:08
there are multiple of those lines for different apps
<@Zlopez:matrix.org>
18:20:10
I tested just the Kinoite installation, could that be counted as KDE Workstation?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:31
we are testing them because we're shipping an OS, and they should work. doesn't matter whether they're new versions or not
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:20:52
Zlopez no. Workstation means...Workstation. the actual, non-atomic, GNOME-based, Workstation.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:21:19
I mean because testing something that will not be shipped *ever* except for on the beta image ...
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:21:32
!info We are waiting for additional tests to be run before proceeding with the meeting
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:47
anyhow
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:21:53
what is going on with these frickin' AMIs
<@Zlopez:matrix.org>
18:22:25
Worth the shot :-D
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:24:34
agh crap something changed in datagrepper again
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:26:30
I've got an ampere box booting on equinix 🤞
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:29:09
i am desperately trying to find the correct message topic. agh
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:29:43
humf, nothing should have changed there... ;(
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:30:43
well, something's off
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:30:58
nirik do you happen to know what *category* the messages from cloud-image-uploader are in?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:31:06
i can't query by topic when i'm trying to find the damn topic
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:31:09
well, maybe if wildcards work
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:31:22
I'm looking...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:33:16
oh hmm
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:33:44
org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.container.branched.fedora
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:33:46
and such
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:34:12
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/v2/id?id=56493828-2185-413f-ad5c-26dc56f221ac&is_raw=true&size=extra-large
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:34:44
yeah it seems like the topic is rightish but it's filtering out the messages...ugh...
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:35:10
wait. did the image uploader not actually work?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:35:10
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw?topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.branched.Cloud_Base.x86_64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.branched.Cloud_Base.aarch64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.rawhide.Cloud_Base.x86_64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.rawhide.Cloud_Base.aarch64&start=1741737600.0&end=1741910400.0
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:35:15
doesn't have anything for the candidate compose
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:35:21
only for nightlies
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:35:41
so...
<@Zlopez:matrix.org>
18:36:00
It should process messages with topic `org.fedoraproject.*.pungi.compose.status.change`
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:36:04
can we just test some other way and sort the ami issue seperately?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:36:19
well, i don't know how to get an arbitrary image into aws and test it :)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:36:26
we need to test in a 'real' cloud, doesn't have to be aws
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:36:37
if anyone knows how to do it in aws or any other cloud, please goa head
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:37:11
nirik heh i see you are also in openshift...
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:37:22
I'm looking in it's logs
<@Zlopez:matrix.org>
18:37:34
I see this `[2025-03-13 17:07:38,199 fedora_image_uploader.utils INFO] Published ContainerPublishedV1 message to fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.container.nightly.fedora-bootc`
<@Zlopez:matrix.org>
18:37:45
That is the last one
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:38:47
ahhh crap
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:39:03
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw?topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.branched.Cloud_Base.x86_64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.branched.Cloud_Base.aarch64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.rawhide.Cloud_Base.x86_64&topic=org.fedoraproject.prod.fedora_image_uploader.published.v1.aws.beta.Cloud_Base.aarch64&start=1741737600.0&end=1741910400.0
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:39:06
the topic has 'beta' in it
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:39:09
i think relval looks for 'branched'
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:39:28
yeah, so it looks like it did upload
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:39:47
okay, got it
<@Zlopez:matrix.org>
18:40:30
Was looking too close to the end :/
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:40:48
okay. we have amis
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:40:50
resuming testing
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:41:06
BTW, as a side note... things that reflow pages when you are trying to click on them are really irritating (looking at you aws console)
<@Zlopez:matrix.org>
18:41:53
Dynamic pages are evil made by evil programmers
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:44:46
oh god i hate that
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:44:50
sorry for the delay folks
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:44:57
i'm just going to do a quick sanity check on both arches and call it good
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:45:13
its fine, i added an info that were waiting for some tests a while back
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:46:42
x86_64 looks fine
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:49:15
aaaand aarch64 looks fine
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:49:15
side note: there's a report on the qa list about Xfce not running initial setup... I've had 0 time to look into it. ;(
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:49:21
did we get the aarch64 ISO testing done?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
18:49:23
Neil Hanlon: how goes server?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:49:30
nirik yeah i had that on the list to look at today too
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:50:00
should be done shortly
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:50:16
heh
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:50:34
!info Cloud smoke test on ec2 aarch64 and x86_64 looks good, will fill the matrix later
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:50:44
!info SAS and FCoE installs not tested due to hardware availability
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:52:10
other than that i think we look fine
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:52:15
anyone see anything else important missing?
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
18:53:12
Hey Adam Troy said the aarch64 ISO would not boot
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:53:33
troy...dawson? doesn't boot on what?
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
18:53:33
Haven't had a chance to look myself yet
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
18:53:42
Yes
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:53:43
Yeah i'm having the same issue here, but I've been trying to netboot, so.
<@derekenz:fedora.im>
18:54:09
Pi4
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:16
http://download-ib01.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/42/Server/aarch64/os/EFI/BOOT/grubaa64.efi... ok
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:16
```
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:16
iPXE> chain ${grubefi}
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:16
http://download-ib01.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/42/Server/aarch64/os/EFI/BOOT/BOOTAA64.EFI... ok
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:16
Could not boot: Error 0x7f048183 (https://ipxe.org/7f048183)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:16
iPXE> chain ${grubefi}
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:16
Could not boot: Error 0x7f048183 (https://ipxe.org/7f048183)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:16
```
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:33
☝️ could be firmware, need to test another boxen.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:54:40
why are computers?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:55:05
well, oh dear.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:55:17
clearly it booted for pwhalen , though, if he's halfway through an install?
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
18:55:41
booted and installing on a Mustang
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:56:08
hum... Neil Hanlon: you don't have secure boot enabled do you?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:56:35
https://github.com/ipxe/ipxe/discussions/714 (fedora 35 aarch64 not booting with same error)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:57:02
let me get into the bios and check..
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:57:54
oh wow, I really need to wake up more. Ignore me for now. I accidentally launched an x86 machine instead of an arm one 🙃
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:58:00
that explains the "exec format error" i just saw
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:58:05
ha. oops. ;)
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
18:58:09
well yeah, that'll make it harder ;)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:58:53
maybe we should add a negative test case to ensure the architectures don't boot one another's images...
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:59:02
cause i'd have aced that one
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:00:30
i think i'd be willing to waive that 'bug'
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:01:52
Install worked on the mustang, seeing if it also works on the Nvidia Jetson NX, seems ok, iso boots
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:03:00
NOTICE: any folks looking for the ELN meeting, it's starting in #meeting-2:fedoraproject.org
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:03:04
let's call that good
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:03:23
!info we have an aarch64 ISO boot test passing on real hardware, pwhalen will check the wiki box shortly
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:03:31
last call for any remaining missing tests?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:04:35
🦗s
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:06:06
!info test matrix coverage is functionally complete
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:06:44
Getting closer to the finish line....
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:07:27
!info CoreOS and IoT check in
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:07:45
IoT is good to go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:08:00
You read my ... script :p
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:08:05
Thank you!
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:08:21
who's around for coreos
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:08:21
dustymabe: is CoreOS ready for release?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:08:37
Or anyone from the Fedora CoreOS camp around to confirm?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:08:41
travier ^^
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:08:54
pwhalen what IoT compose are we shipping?
<@pwhalen:fedora.im>
19:09:54
Todays is fine - Fedora-IoT-42-20250313.0
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:11:18
I'm not sure who we can get from FCOS... ;( should we just figure that out out of meeting? or do we need to confirm now?
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:11:36
it does look like we have passes on the IoT tests...except for some hw
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:11:59
let's say we have no reason to believe coreos is *not* ready? :D
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:12:29
I can ping the fcos room and yeah we can continue with the assumption that they are..
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:12:43
+1
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
19:13:09
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:13:11
Michael Armijo (marmijo)
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
19:13:20
I'm here from coreos. We're ready
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:14:39
!info Both Fedora CoreOS and Fedora IoT are ready for release
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:15:04
!topic Go/No-Go Decision
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:15:50
I will now poll each team. Please reply 'go' or 'no-go'
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:16:03
FESCo
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:16:06
go
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:16:19
Releng
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:16:36
also go (switching hats)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:16:50
QA
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:17:00
Go
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:17:01
Go
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:17:04
go
<@boniboyblue:fedora.im>
19:17:46
Go.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:17:58
!agreed Fedora Linux 42 Beta is GO
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:18:05
🏎️varoom
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
19:18:07
🥳
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:18:10
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:18:10
!info Fedora Linux 42 Beta will release on the current target date (2025-18-03)
<@geraldosimiao:matrix.org>
19:18:10
🚀🎆
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
19:18:11
lets' goooooooo
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
19:18:17
🎉
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:18:27
alrighty
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:18:33
!action @amoloney to announce decision
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:18:47
!topic open floor
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:18:56
Anything else before we close up shop?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:19:09
nothing here. Thanks for the hard work everyone.
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:19:37
thanks everyone
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:19:40
sorry for the long meeting
<@Zlopez:matrix.org>
19:19:48
\o/
<@adamwill:fedora.im>
19:19:53
hey, lruzicka solved the 'what can fedora use AI for?' problem
<@lruzicka:matrix.org>
19:21:01
adamw: you have a moment in a "chambre séparée" for a short chat?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:21:04
And with the silliness approaching, I'll end the meeting :) echoing nirik - thank you everyone for all your hard work!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:21:21
!endmeeting