This is just another step in the ABRT saga. Still the same justification. It would be OK if remote processing worked, but at least currently it doesn't (that might change in a few days? or it might hit another obstacle, who knows).

BetaBlocker +1

Btw, people might argue that it was proposed too late and therefore might be waved at go/no-go. Technically yes, but we couldn't discover this bug because it was obscured by a number of other bugs we're slowly chewing through. So the late blocker policy shouldn't be applied for this one, I believe.

BetaBlocker +1

With the understanding that I'm going to argue in favor of waiving based on:
1. The late nature of it (Kamil's argument not withstanding)
2. The general consensus in Monday's blocker review meeting that at this point we're better served by shipping with a broken abrt than delaying the release further with no clear end in sight.

• yesterday workstation wg did not come to a consensus whether it's it's a blocker or what can be done about the situation overall
• no explicit release criterion (there is an explicit one for final)
• hinders test plans, reduces test coverage is more persuasive than not; but is it persuasive enough to block beta indefinitely? Would FESCo block on this if asked? If they would pass on it, then shouldn't we?
• the situation isn't a surprise, we knew this day was coming for months, but as it turns out, it was only ever going to get fixed on its own schedule
  fedora-workstation#156
  fedora-workstation#130
  fedora-infrastructure#9060
• it may not even be final blocker worthy, in terms of actually committing the resources to ensure it works and is fixed when broken

I'd say in hindsight, it's not a beta blocker. And looking forward it's possibly not even a final blocker because of how long it hasn't worked. My suggestion is to give up on the beta issue, and evaluate whether to drop final release requirement; whether it was just an unhappy series of unrelated events, or whether there are sufficient resources.

Btw, people might argue that it was proposed too late and therefore might be waved at go/no-go. Technically yes, but we couldn't discover this bug because it was obscured by a number of other bugs we're slowly chewing through. So the late blocker policy shouldn't be applied for this one, I believe.

I agree with this justification: this is essentially a continuation of the previous "ABRT doesn't work" blockers, so late blocker policy should not apply. If it cannot create a bug report on Red Hat Bugzilla one way or another, it fails the basic functionality test. I'd rather slip a third week than keep kicking this can down the road. +1 BetaBlocker

I'd say in hindsight, it's not a beta blocker. And looking forward it's possibly not even a final blocker because of how long it hasn't worked. My suggestion is to give up on the beta issue, and evaluate whether to drop final release requirement; whether it was just an unhappy series of unrelated events, or whether there are sufficient resources.

Well there's some truth to this too, but if we wind up declaring ABRT bankruptcy, then it needs to be removed from default install so we don't ship with it broken.

I agree with this justification: this is essentially a continuation of the previous "ABRT doesn't work" blockers, so late blocker policy should not apply. If it cannot create a bug report on Red Hat Bugzilla one way or another, it fails the basic functionality test. I'd rather slip a third week than keep kicking this can down the road. +1 BetaBlocker

BTW there is a very simple patch upstream for this issue, but I understand it's already too late. Oh well.

The story continues :smirk:

The story continues :smirk:

In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882319 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882328

BetaBlocker +1
(But I am happy if proved otherwise as well)

//Edit: Vote command fixed by kparal

BetaBlocker +1 (But I am happy if proved otherwise as well)

Turns out that writing anything else on the line causes your vote to not count. :)

BetaBlocker +1

Turns out that writing anything else on the line causes your vote to not count. :)

Who would've thought. It's in the guidelines! :-)
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review

AGREED AcceptedBetaBlocker

The following votes have been closed:

• Accepted BetaBlocker (+4, 0, -0)
  • +1 by kparal, bcotton, mohanboddu, catanzaro

Discussed during the 2020-09-24 Fedora 33 Go/No-Go meeting: [0]

The decision to waive this bug's existing classification as an "AcceptedBlocker (Beta)" in the Go/No-Go decision was made under the late blocker exception since Beta getting the fix in an update is sufficient.

[0] https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-09-24/f33-beta-go_no_go-meeting.2020-09-24-17.00.txt

If a blocker is waived according to an exception rule, it's moved to the very next milestone per policy. Setting as a Final blocker.

AGREED AcceptedFinalBlocker

The following votes have been closed:

• Accepted FinalBlocker (+0, 0, -0)

Release F33 is no longer tracked by BlockerBugs, closing this ticket.