#1985 [Urgent] Bootloader Change in F29 was not complete for Change Deadline
Closed: Accepted 5 years ago Opened 5 years ago by sgallagh.

Requesting that we engage the expedited process for this issue (requiring +/- 7 votes urgently).

This came up during the Blocker Bug meeting today. There is a Freeze Exception request[1] to land changes related to the Bootloader Spec Change[2] after Beta Freeze. What has happened here is that the Change BZ was incorrectly moved to ON_QA on Aug. 14th by @pjones despite the fact that it was not in fact testable or implemented in any way outside of custom developer systems.

Since it was ON_QA, we didn't process it as an Incomplete Change. Given the high-risk nature of this Change and the lateness that we are addressing it, I'm proposing that we reject this Change for F29 and retarget it for F30. We need to make this decision fairly quickly, as the relevant changes are currently being considered for inclusion[3] in Anaconda and I've asked them to defer merging it until we have.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598523
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BootLoaderSpecByDefault
[3] https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/1545

CC @adamwill @kparal @pjones @javierm


As a note, I'm minded to propose a new rule for the Change process: if part of a Change's scope involves a new default setting for something, the Change is not to be considered "testable" or "complete" until that is implemented.

We have already seen a case this cycle where the attempt to do that completely broke system boot for virtually all testers (dbus); it just shouldn't be OK to say "well, all the bits are sort of there, but we didn't actually make it so they're used when you just run an install" yet. That needs to be done at the "testable" date.

edit: another thing I wanted to note - somehow, this Change is missing from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/ChangeSet , thus I did not include it in a survey of Changes I made last week, or else I would've noticed the incomplete implementation sooner...

As much as I am in favor of this particular "Change", at this point I'm leaning towards deferring until F30 due to the high risk nature of the change. (That being said, if someone can convince me that the change has been well-tested and isn't risky, I'm willing to change my vote.)

I'm also +1 to the proposal by @adamwill to add his new rule for the Change process.

I apologize for it missing from the ChangeSet page. It was accidentally placed into the wrong category. I've regenerated the page, so it should be correct now (FWIW, this is one of the reasons I want to move away from using the wiki for tracking changes).

I agree with the recommendation to defer this to Fedora 30.

Yep, I have to concur. This is a non-trivial change to a crucial anaconda part. We shouldn't be pushing this when already in beta.

+1 to defer change

+1 to @adamwill's new rule

For the record, I'm +1 to my own proposal.

Also, I am +1 to the new rule.

Is it reasonable, and if so when is it reasonable, to flip the switch on this in Rawhide? There are the unknown issues that will pop up from this change, but at least as big an issue is that it's very much a user facing change. The more familiar the technical membership of the Fedora community becomes with this change, the more support will be available to guide people through the change. So if it's possible to flip this over shortly after Beta is a go, and maybe with a heads up to QA so they can see if any automated tests start blowing up?

+1 to defer and +1 to @adamwill's proposal.

@chrismurphy:

It you think the change is ready it is IMHO a good idea to enable it in Rawhide shortly so it can get tested for as long as possible.

That’s +7 on both proposals and thus we have an expedited decision.

This Change will be deferred to F30. @chrismurphy I think landing this in Rawhide right away would be an excellent idea. I don’t think you necessarily need to wait for Beta to end, but I think a devel-announce message when it hits could be a good move.

I also agree that this would be good to land in Rawhide sooner rather than later.

Metadata Update from @bowlofeggs:
- Issue tagged with: pending announcement

5 years ago

Metadata Update from @bowlofeggs:
- Issue untagged with: pending announcement
- Issue close_status updated to: Accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

5 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata