Bug details: ** https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2270355 ** Information from BlockerBugs App:
Commented but haven't voted yet: pbrobinson
The votes have been last counted at 2024-03-20 17:26 UTC and the last processed comment was #comment-901312
To learn how to vote, see: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review A quick example: BetaBlocker +1 (where the tracker name is one of BetaBlocker/FinalBlocker/BetaFE/FinalFE/0Day/PreviousRelease and the vote is one of +1/0/-1)
BetaBlocker +1
BetaBlocker
FinalBlocker
BetaFE
FinalFE
0Day
PreviousRelease
+1
0
-1
So having written this down, I'm kinda on the fence about whether we really need a new spin for it. FCOS is the most clear-cut case that needs it, but FCOS doesn't actually need it to be a Beta blocker, as they can hold shim back or fast-forward it for their compose.
So, we have to consider other cases. There's the intended use of the fallback mechanism - recovery on a 'normal' deployed end-user system if the Fedora entry is removed, or broken, or just not used on boot for some reason. There are also possibly other cases where the fallback path is expected to be used for boot; are there IoT cases? Cloud cases? I'm not sure if our EC2 AMIs have SB enabled...
@pjones if you're aware of specific use cases for the fallback path that would affect the blocker decision it'd be great to know about them.
from github, pjones came down against blocker - "No, not worth re-doing the beta."
@ngompa says that Azure cloud instances may be affected, we have not tested that for sure either way yet though I don't think. We think EC2 cloud instances would not be by default, not sure about Google Cloud.
I'm not sure if our EC2 AMIs have SB enabled...
They should be setting the prefer UEFI option so if they end up on an instance with UEFI I would expect they do but I'm not 100% here
Can we just spin up RC 1.10 while we discuss this? I don't see a harm in taking it in, if we can make it on time. All we need to do is to retest basic boot and installation, and all other results can be taken from RC 1.9. Sounds OK to me.
Not sure about blocker, but definitely: BetaFE +1
I'll go with Kamil's idea, spin up a new rc and get the results mostly from 1.9.
BetaFE +1
@kparal we were in a sort of awkward position because we merged some other fixes, which would mean more stuff gets fixed in 1.10 (including a few images) but also increases the risk.
still, I guess we could build it, and if it's a disaster, pretend it didn't happen...
I'm at least:
on this, which gives us +3, so:
AGREED AcceptedBetaFE
The following votes have been closed:
Metadata Update from @blockerbot: - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Release F40 is no longer tracked by BlockerBugs, closing this ticket.
Log in to comment on this ticket.