F17 Beta Blocker Bug Review #2 Minutes

Mon Mar 12 22:56:54 UTC 2012

=============================================
#fedora-bugzappers: F17-beta-blocker-review-2
=============================================

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2012-03-09/f17-beta-blocker-review-2.2012-03-09-17.02.html
Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2012-03-09/f17-beta-blocker-review-2.2012-03-09-17.02.txt
Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2012-03-09/f17-beta-blocker-review-2.2012-03-09-17.02.log.html

Meeting summary
---------------
* roll call  (adamw, 17:02:19)

* Introduction  (adamw, 17:07:47)
  * Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and
    nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor
    the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have
    bugs.  (adamw, 17:07:57)
  * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers
    (adamw, 17:08:04)
  * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Beta_Release_Criteria
    (adamw, 17:08:07)
  * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
    (adamw, 17:08:11)
  * 9 Proposed Blockers  (adamw, 17:08:30)
  * 7 Accepted Blockers  (adamw, 17:08:48)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801782  (adamw, 17:09:48)
  * AGREED: 801782 is a blocker per beta criterion "The default update
    manager in release-blocking desktops must not periodically check for
    updates when the system is booted live, but must periodically check
    for updates when running on an installed system"  (adamw, 17:14:28)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787744  (adamw, 17:16:31)
  * AGREED: 787744 is rejected as a blocker: it doesn't really prevent
    direct kernel boot of the installer from working, you just need to
    specify some parameters for it. i.e. it's 'easily workaroundable'.
    accepted as NTH, if the fix is not too invasive.  (adamw, 17:44:58)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800316  (adamw, 17:45:29)
  * AGREED: 800316 is not a blocker as the impact is fairly small (it
    affects only the rarely used 'skip bootloader' option). we have
    other bugs for more serious problems with bootloader handling on
    upgrade  (adamw, 17:54:07)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797507  (adamw, 17:54:20)
  * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800205
    (pschindl, 17:59:33)
  * AGREED: 797507 is a dupe of 785815, we also have 800205 for the
    preupgrade case (which could be fixed on preupgrade side if it is
    not fixed on anaconda side)  (adamw, 18:13:59)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736993  (adamw, 18:16:31)
  * AGREED: 736993 is a beta blocker: general consensus that serial
    console should be beta blocking, we will tidy up the criteria to
    reflect this  (adamw, 18:25:02)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748964  (adamw, 18:25:32)
  * AGREED: 748964 can now be considered a dupe of 736993 as that's been
    re-opened for F17 Beta. 736993 is accepted as a beta blocker as it
    breaks serial install.  (adamw, 18:34:39)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799174  (adamw, 18:35:32)
  * AGREED: 799174 is not a blocker: dependency issues in
    updates-testing are pretty common place and don't affect releases
    unless the problems get pushed to stable, which we would catch later
    (adamw, 18:38:19)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800205  (adamw, 18:38:31)
  * AGREED: 800205 is a blocker per criterion "The installer must be
    able to successfully complete an upgrade installation from a clean,
    fully updated default installation (from any official install
    medium) of the previous stable Fedora release, either via preupgrade
    or by booting to the installer manually. The upgraded system must
    meet all release criteria"  (adamw, 18:41:14)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591630  (adamw, 18:41:25)
  * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591630#c19
    (adamw, 18:42:47)
  * AGREED: 591630 is a blocker: the bug infringes criteria cited in the
    report in the specific case of 'IPv6-only network'. we are making
    the determination that this is a significant enough case at this
    point in time to make the bug a blocker. we will report this
    decision to devel list and FESCo for their review  (adamw, 18:50:11)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800376  (adamw, 18:51:24)
  * AGREED: 800376 is not a blocker: it's likely not the desired design,
    but in practice, upgrade *does* work with the default option. if
    anaconda team want to improve the design that's great, but it's not
    a blocker  (adamw, 19:03:51)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742207  (adamw, 19:04:49)
  * an updates.img is available for 742207, so it's on QA to check that
    out and give feedback to bcl  (adamw, 19:05:30)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753421  (adamw, 19:06:55)
  * 753421 has an updates.img available for testing, so again, needs us
    to test  (adamw, 19:08:24)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787461  (adamw, 19:09:18)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787461  (adamw, 19:09:53)
  * AGREED: 787461 has morphed into a much less serious bug than
    initially reported, let's re-close it and ask hongqing to report his
    bug as a new one  (adamw, 19:18:45)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=787893  (adamw, 19:19:01)
  * fix for 787893 is in Beta TC1 and needs testing - simple f16 to f17
    upgrade test should be enough  (adamw, 19:21:50)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=796155  (adamw, 19:22:02)
  * bcl says this bug should go away with the landing of noloader, which
    will happen Real Soon Now: ball is in anaconda team's court on this
    one  (adamw, 19:25:05)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798373  (adamw, 19:25:24)
  * 798373 fix is in and tested by kparal but needs to be pushed stable
    and added to beta tc2 compose  (adamw, 19:26:16)

* http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754568  (adamw, 19:27:25)
  * ACTION: adamw to bug ajax about 754568  (adamw, 19:30:08)
  * 754568 no movement from developer  (adamw, 19:31:17)
  * AGREED: meeting was unacceptably short. let's not make that mistake
    again.  (adamw, 19:32:22)

* open floor  (adamw, 19:32:47)

Meeting ended at 19:34:54 UTC.

Action Items
------------
* adamw to bug ajax about 754568

People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* adamw (336)
* kparal (160)
* bcl (56)
* fenrus02 (55)
* maxamillion (47)
* pschindl (35)
* buggbot (20)
* nirik (15)
* brunowolff (14)
* zodbot (4)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net