(Posting to many mailing lists for visibility. I apologize if you see
this more times than you'd like.)
You may have already seen my Community Blog post about changing the
Release Readiness meeting process. The meeting has questionable value
in the current state, so I want to make it more useful. We'll do this
by having teams self-report readiness issues on a dedicated wiki
page beginning now. This gives the community time to chip in and
help with areas that need help without waiting until days before the
I invite teams to identify a representative to keep the wiki page up
to date. Update it as your status changes and I'll post help requests
in my weekly CommBlog posts and the FPgM office hours IRC
meeting. The Release Readiness meeting will be shortened to one hour
and will review open concerns instead of polling for teams that may or
may not be there. We will use the logistics mailing list to discuss
issues and make announcements, so I encourage representatives to join
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 09:33:42PM -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 10:52 AM Adam Williamson
> <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > Since this is an API endpoint of a real system which needs to be
> > updated correctly when the release events actually happen, it should
> > have the benefits pkgdb used to be (the information should be reliable
> > and timely)
> Do we have stats on how many hits per second that current endpoint receives?
It looks like it gets less than 100k/day. So, one or less per second.
> It would be a bummer to inadvertently bring down Bodhi because of this feature.
Agreed. We should definitely make sure if we switch to this it can
handle the load, but it doesn't seem like it will be much of a problem.
> What do you think about having Bodhi write out a flat file to disk or
> something for Apache to serve in a similar way, so it doesn't have to
> go through mod_wsgi or touch the database for that URL?
We could, but I don't think it gets enough traffic to warrent that...
Something to discuss with the Bodhi development team.
9:30 am ET
* Outstanding F32 in-progress tasks
* Bi-monthly progress updates to help focus on clearing the
in-progress queue (or as needed)
#129 Remove LibreOffice Draw from default install. No objections in
ticket, so removal can proceed.
#107 Reconsider updates policy. We'll punt this until Matthew Miller
can show up.
#121 Support for hibernation? Discuss what's new since last week's #action item.
Proposal for F33: "drop swap partition, enable swap-on-ZRAM"
#127 enable swap-on-ZRAM by default
#121 Support for hibernation?
#120 Anaconda creates way too much swap space
Idea is to summarize all three, and thereby make the case in favor of
the proposal. If there's consensus to agree, clearing these off the
board it makes it easier to revisit #54, #82, #101.
If there isn't consensus yet, then we need to better understand the
source of hesitation, and ask how to mitigate concerns.
On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 07:25 -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
> As for those extra applications that you are debating about:
> I figure the word processor (libre-office) would have already been
> checked when you check the Workstation desktop, so I don't feel it has
> to be checked again.
It is possible for us to hit desktop-specific issues in applications,
it's happened before. So we'd probably still want to do that.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
Yesterday I sent out a QA-related proposal that directly affects the
release criteria for KDE x86_64 and Workstation x86_64 and (probably)
aarch64 images. The proposal is attached below and also available in the
test list (including some follow-ups which are recommended to read):
Can you please review that proposal and post your thoughts, if you have
any? (Responding to test list is preferred, so that we can discuss it in a
single place, but responding here is fine as well). Thank you.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 3:20 PM
Subject: proposal: Default application functionality criterion reduction
To: test <test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
This proposal intends to reduce the scope of the “*Default application
functionality*” release criterion :
All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical
> mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default installation of
> that desktop must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality
*= Background =*
The area which QA is responsible for has been growing and growing in recent
years. We used to have just a single Fedora release with two blocking
desktops (GNOME and KDE). Then Editions got introduced and we started
testing Workstation, Server, Cloud and the KDE Spin. Additional
architectures were introduced (fortunately i386 got obsolete) and we
started testing and blocking on specific images on armhfp and aarch64.
Currently there are 13 release blocking deliverables mentioned on the
ReleaseBlocking page . That list is not complete, though. Fedora CoreOS
became an official edition lately, and even though its release cycle is not
tied to traditional Fedora release cycle (and that’s why it’s not mentioned
on that wiki page), as an official edition QA should care about it as well.
It is the same story with Fedora IoT, another recent release-blocking
addition . Desktop testing is one of the most time-consuming jobs with
the most frequent bug occurrence. Right now, we’re supposed to be fully
testing and blocking on GNOME, KDE and XFCE (although XFCE might get
dropped in favor or aarch64 Workstation ). We cannot test all of this
and honestly claim that we verified basic functionality of all the included
apps on all these desktops. I believe we need to adjust the criterion and
align it closer with reality. In my eyes, it’s better to have a narrower
scope and perform it well than having a large scope and perform it poorly.
*= Proposal =*
Change the criterion to something along these lines:
All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical
> mechanism after a default installation of Fedora Workstation on x86_64
> architecture must start successfully and withstand a basic functionality
> For other release-blocking desktops (on any architecture), the
> requirements only apply to the following types of applications:
> * web browser (e.g. firefox) 
> * file browser (e.g. nautilus)
> * package manager (e.g. gnome-software)
> * image viewer (e.g. eog)
> * document viewer (e.g. evince)
> * text editor (e.g. gedit)
> * archive manager (e.g. file-roller)
> * terminal emulator (e.g. gnome-terminal) 
> * problem reporter (e.g. abrt)
> If there are multiple applications of the same type (e.g. several web
> browsers), only one of them needs to satisfy the requirements.
As you can see, the original criterion was kept for Fedora’s flagship
desktop edition, the one that is most prominent on https://getfedora.org
and probably the one that most newcomers download. We would still verify
everything on Fedora Workstation on x86_64. But any other desktop
(including Workstation on aarch64) would get just reduced criteria, because
we simply can’t ensure the same quality bar for the smaller desktop
editions/spins. There are some high-profile types of applications that I
considered including in the list above, but didn’t in the end:
* word editor (e.g. libreoffice-writer)
* spreadsheet editor (e.g. libreoffice-calc)
* video player (e.g. totem)
* help viewer (e.g. yelp)
I’d like to hear your thoughts on whether they should be included or not.
Of course from an end-user point of view, it would be beneficial. But the
question is whether we as QA can promise their testing. And also whether we
want to block the release e.g. if Gnumeric is broken on armhfp XFCE or if
totem doesn’t work on aarch64. Yes, it’s unpleasant, but people using
alternative desktops and architectures are usually far from beginners. It’s
usually not difficult to install a different application. Also note that
the apps included in x86_64 Workstation will be thoroughly tested so they
should be very likely to work well even on other architectures (minus some
I’d like to target Fedora 32 with this proposal, which means we should
decide on this proposal fast. (I wanted to propose it much sooner, but I
was waiting on clarifications about new release-blocking images and also on
some fesco tickets , some of which is still not clarified; so I’m sorry
about a late proposal).
Please comment, thanks.
 These two are required to work even in Basic release criteria , but
I decided to include them anyway to avoid confusion (“why is the web
browser missing?”), and to make it clear that they need to satisfy the
basic functionality (whereas for Basic release criteria just the barebone
functionality might be deemed enough)
Continued from the 'background and summary' email:
Adding Hans and Matthew and Lennart to cc.
Questions I have are:
- WG is considering dropping creation of swap partitions by default,
in favor of swap-on-ZRAM. Any concerns? (We do know it's not possible
to use a ZRAM device for hibernation, but the kernel will look to
another swap device for contiguous free space to write out a
- What's the status of s2idle in the kernel?
- What sort of work is needed outside the kernel to properly support
s2idle, or is this predominantly kernel work? Microsoft documents on
Modern Standby suggest minimal application effort. 
- Prospect of kernel support to separate swap and hibernation
partitions (and/or swap files)? Or systemd method of creating then
activating swapfiles on demand?
- Prospect of hibernation supported with UEFI Secure Boot?
- Is hibernation a better fallback than poweroff, given the
significant reliability differential? Why? Poweroff is universal,
hibernation isn't. What's the argument that a non-universally
available fallback is better than the universal fallback?
- What are the implications of hibernation if Fedora will move to
measured boot? (I'm not sure how mainstream that function is expected
to be, or it's use case specific opt-in.)
- There's some anecdotal evidence users are disabling UEFI Secure
Boot, possibly quite a lot . Does there need to be an effort at
making the signing of user built kernel and module easier? Can it be
made easier? I don't know custom or out of tree modules is a
significant motive for disabling SB, vs other explanations.
- A systemd TODO makes me wonder: Does anyone have (corroborating)
data on the reliability of firmware or battery reporting, when the
system, and thus the battery, are under significant load?  I've
discussed with a reliable source that on 2+ year old hardware, the
vast majority of batteries are effectively broken and aren't likely to
report anything reliably if they are under significant load, in
particular waking from S3. By anything, I mean, time remaining, power
remaining, and current power consumption rate. Would s2idle instead of
S3 would make this more reliable?
- It doesn't sound like S1 is really used at all, even though kernel
docs say it's supported as shallow/standby. (?) Is it more or less
reliable than S3?
- I'm inclined to think we should mimic what hardware vendors,
Microsoft, Apple, and Google (with Chromebooks and Android) have been
doing for a while: faster boots, and S0 low power idle - and skip the
things making devs and users crazy. But I invite a persuasive contrary
- Any other questions?
 see line "beef up hibernation"