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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
