Hi!
I didn't know there were any holidays, I've been sick though.
When is the meeting then? Today is Thursday. :)
Regards,
Sylvia
On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 18:53 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 21:41 -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think we can have RC compose once all the blockers are resolved
> > and QA
> > files the ticket even during the holidays, even though I am not
> > guaranteeing it but I think someone will get to it sooner or later.
> >
> > But my major concern is blockers, I am not sure if we can get all
> > the
> > blockers fixed by next Tue.
> >
> > Also, there are few proposed blockers and I dont know how many
> > people will
> > show up for Blocker Review meeting.
>
> So here's a very quick and informal blocker status mail:
>
> There are four accepted blockers.
>
> #1462825 doesn't look like it should be particularly difficult for
> the
> right people to fix - i.e. folks who know libreport and anaconda's
> interface with it. We just need to make sure we have their eyes on
> it;
> I've attempted to CC all appropriate people.
>
> We have an approach for fixing #1449752 agreed and it just needs the
> maintainer to go ahead and do it. I've tried to explain the urgency
> of
> this in the bug this afternoon.
>
> #1436873 is in a state of slight disagreement about whether it's
> really
> happening, I think. ;) The openQA test is still failing quite often
> (although not always). I will try and reproduce the issue manually
> tomorrow, since there appears to be scepticism among the KDE folks.
> But
> in general the KDE folks are quite fast to fix issues once we do pin
> them down specifically, I would be quite optimistic about getting
> this
> one fixed.
>
> #1404285 is a GNOME crash quite a lot of people seem to be
> encountering
> in different ways (possibly because it's a tracker issue and tracker
> is
> hooked into lots of things). In at least some cases it causes GNOME
> as
> a whole to crash back to GDM, which is of course bad. There are
> various
> different reproduction steps documented in the bug. I'm hoping the
> desktop team is looking at this, and will be able to provide us with
> some more assessment.
>
> There are five proposed blockers. My professional guesstimate *at
> this
> point* is that at least four of them will probably be rejected,
> though
> that could change with more data (attention pjones: if #1418360 and
> #1451071 are more serious than they seem to us so far, please do let
> us
> know). #1462444 is the most unclear one, but it doesn't seem like a
> lot
> of people are running into it, and we may wind up rejecting it also
> on
> that basis.
>
> Given the holiday situation, it might make sense to do a blocker
> meeting tomorrow (Thursday) or Friday, depending on how much notice
> folks need, to give us at least a shot at doing an RC on Friday or
> over
> the weekend, if all the accepted blockers happen to get resolved.
>
> There are also a *ton* of proposed FEs for broken dependencies; we
> might also want to blow through those quickly at a meeting.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin .
> net
>
http://www.happyassassin.net
> _______________________________________________
> desktop mailing list -- desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org