[Marketing] Feedback needed on Fedora 25 announcements
by Brian Proffitt
All:
To prepare for the anticipated release of Fedora 25, we have started the
process of drafting the Fedora 25 release announcement and press release.
The release announcement[1] needs the most input. I have based it on the
Fedora 25 beta release announcement and will be going through the document
today to clean up any obvious beta mentions. Members of each workgroup
should focus on:
* Additional features to highlight that were not in the beta announcement
* Important stories that you think this announcement should be telling
* Particular focus on the change from "Cloud" to "Atomic."
The press release is templated from the Fedora 24 press release[2] and will
be revised based on the release announcement.
Therefore, the priority is on the release announcement, and feedback should
be given to that document by close of business (2100 UTC) November 7, 2016.
Thank you,
Brian Proffitt
7 years, 5 months
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 25 Candidate RC-1.2 Available Now!
by Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 16:02 -0800, rawhide(a)fedoraproject.org wrote:
> According to the schedule [1], Fedora 25 Candidate RC-1.2 is now
> available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
> testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
>
> Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
> https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/25
>
> You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
> locations, and enter results on the Summary page:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.2_Summary
>
> The individual test result pages are:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.2_Installation
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.2_Base
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.2_Server
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.2_Cloud
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.2_Desktop
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.2_Security_Lab
>
> All RC priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must
> pass in order to meet the RC Release Criteria [3].
>
> Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [4], or on the
> test list [5].
There are two changes from RC-1.1 in RC-1.2:
libblockdev-1.9-8.fc25 - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-76a96e8bf3
selinux-policy-3.13.1-224.fc25 - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f29b746f2e
those fix a couple of partitioning bugs kparal found in RC-1.1:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393379
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393373
Unfortunately both packages can at least *theoretically* affect almost
anything else (selinux-policy for obvious reasons, and libblockdev
because anaconda uses it), so it would be good to re-run as many tests
as we can with this compose. Sorry for the extra work, folks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
7 years, 5 months
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 25 Candidate RC-1.1 Available Now!
by Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 00:36 -0800, rawhide(a)fedoraproject.org wrote:
> According to the schedule [1], Fedora 25 Candidate RC-1.1 is now
> available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
> testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
>
> Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
> https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/25
>
> You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
> locations, and enter results on the Summary page:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.1_Summary
>
> The individual test result pages are:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.1_Installation
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.1_Base
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.1_Server
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.1_Cloud
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.1_Desktop
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_25_RC_1.1_Security_Lab
>
> All RC priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must
> pass in order to meet the RC Release Criteria [3].
>
> Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [4], or on the
> test list [5].
>
> Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs:
> http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
>
> [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-25/f-25-quality-tasks.html
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
> [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_25_RC_Release_Criteria
> [4] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa
> [5] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org/
Hi folks! Sending this along to more lists, with an extra note: the
Fedora 25 Go/No-Go is on Thursday - yes, tomorrow for most of the world
- so we need YOU to help run all the tests! We need to fill out all of
the Alpha, Beta and Final (not 'RC', as the mail says...I should fix
that) tests on all the validation pages. Some particular tests that
it'd be great to have people working on are the Server tests, non-
English installs, and the Desktop 'menus' tests, which basically mean
'install Workstation or KDE and run every single app that's installed
and make sure they all at least basically work'.
If you run into any serious issues, please propose them as Final
blockers, either using blockerbugs:
https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug
or simply by marking the bug as 'Blocks: FinalBlocker' (and please add
a comment with an explanation of why you think it should block
release).
Thanks a lot, everyone!
Note, there is one bug currently accepted as a blocker which is not
addressed by this compose:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382001
but there is clearly some sentiment to drop its blocker status, so we
decided to go ahead and run a compose and get it tested so if we do
decide to drop that bug from the blocker list, and no other blockers
appear, we can ship.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
7 years, 5 months
Agenda for Server SIG Meeting (2016-11-08)
by Stephen Gallagher
We need to discuss the Fedora Marketing request, since Go/No-Go for F25 is on
Thursday.
We can also continue our discussion on role requirements if there's time.
7 years, 5 months
Fedora Release Tools Demo (Canceled) - Written Status
by Amanda Carter
Hi folks, due to travel and various obstacles, we're not able to host a recorded demo this month. Instead we've put together a status report that includes some additional highlights we think you might be interested in. If you have feedback and/or think this works well, I'd love to know b/c I think this vehicle covers more information than a demo alone so I might do both in the future if it's worth it.
Apologies for missing the actual show and tell - if there's anything you'd like to see specifically, I'm sure we can arrange something.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/StatusReport#13SEP2016
--
Amanda Carter
7 years, 5 months
Improving Offline Updates (WAS Re: I asked Hacker News what
developers want from a desktop, and this is what they said)
by Stephen Gallagher
On 10/25/2016 11:46 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:47:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 10/24/2016 09:21 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>>> It sounds to me like your single-reboot work is worth continuing. We
>>> don't need to support strange edge cases.
>>>
>>
>> My remaining concern is this statement from Lennart that I haven't had an
>> opportunity to understand better:
>>
>> "However, so far we have quite some concerns about adding this, precisely for
>> the reason that it pretends to be a reset of everything to the boot-up defaults,
>> but actually isn't, as a ton of runtime state is retained in /sys and /proc/sys
>> and other runtime objects."
>>
>> I don't know what runtime state he's talking about here or whether the risk is
>> greater than the advantages to avoiding an extra reboot.
>
> For example, writing stuff to /proc/sys is not entirely idempotent:
> depending on the order, you might get slightly different results. And
> of course there's no way to reset the state to kernel defaults.
> If a sysctl.d file is removed, that setting will not be "undone" during
> an upgrade, until after a reboot. In 99% of cases this doesn't matter.
>
> If we skip the reboot *before* the upgrade, that should be fine.
> Skipping the reboot *after* the upgrade is probably not worth the uncertainty.
>
So, good news! This is in fact already possible to do today, as I just tested.
The following set of commands does exactly this:
```
pkcon refresh force
pkcon update --only-download
pkcon offline-trigger
systemctl isolate system-update.target
```
This all runs in the current boot and will trigger a reboot immediately after
the update completes. All of this should be easily possible to do for
Workstation within GNOME Software if we agree that's easier on the end-user.
For Server, should we provide a couple scripts for simplicity? One for caching
the pending updates and another to trigger the update-and-reboot?
> There's also kexec: with recent kernels kexec does not work for me anymore
> (graphics crash). Nevertheless, kexec is something worth considering too:
> the state is reset quite thoroughly, and we avoid the potentially very
> slow POST.
2.0
7 years, 5 months
Server SIG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2016-11-01)
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
===================================================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2016-11-01)
===================================================================
Meeting started by sgallagh at 20:00:07 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-11-01/server_work...
.
Meeting summary
- ---------------
* roll call (sgallagh, 20:00:07)
* Agenda (sgallagh, 20:02:37)
* Agenda Item: Node.js for alternative architectures (sgallagh,
20:02:54)
* Agenda Item: Common requirements for server roles (sgallagh,
20:03:08)
* Node.js for alternative architectures (sgallagh, 20:04:49)
* AGREED: We will add s390x to the %{nodejs_arches} macro in time for
the F26 mass rebuild. We are abstaining from a decision on EPEL.
(sgallagh, 20:27:39)
* Common requirements for server roles (sgallagh, 20:28:01)
* After much discussion, we largely agreed on "You can use either
containers or bare-metal for a role, but if you choose not to
containerize, you'll have to justify it strongly" (sgallagh,
21:13:00)
Meeting ended at 21:15:06 UTC.
Action Items
- ------------
Action Items, by person
- -----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
- ---------------------------
* sgallagh (115)
* vvaldez (24)
* smooge (21)
* dperpeet (20)
* jds2001 (20)
* sharkcz (15)
* zodbot (12)
* langdon (12)
* mhayden (9)
* nirik (4)
* mjwolf (3)
* adamw (2)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Mailvelope v1.5.2
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
wkYEAREIABAFAlgZBiUJEHolVWI2uqOjAAC8dwCglhwK2apgDPpIpiklCX1y
zSgU3r8AnivMMSw2Lr7eGeMK0HQd5VF1bzQB
=hpnK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
7 years, 5 months
Agenda for Server SIG Meeting (2016-11-01)
by Stephen Gallagher
The primary item I have on the agenda for today is discussing what minimum and
mandatory requirements our roles should meet to be accepted.
Anyone have other topics for this week?
7 years, 5 months