GO / NO-GO Meeting: NixOS 20.03 Markhor

Announcements
1

NixOS GO / NO-GO Meeting

Hello everyone,

This release, @worldofpeace asked me to set up a Go / No-Go meeting for the release of NixOS 20.03, Markhor. This meeting is to include stakeholders from various critical subsystems of NixOS. We hope to include people representing server deployments, macOS, ARM, maintainers of various Desktop Environments and GUI ecosystems, and other key participants.

Where / When

We are planning to hold a 1 hour long Jitsi Meet call some time in the next few days. This is video-optional, and participation by IRC is also okay – but real-time audio participation at a minimum is preferred. Once we get some availability information, I will send out a meeting invitation.

We will try to make the time ideal for everybody, but we will likely not be able to do so. Please fill out this form with your availability so we can do our best: NixOS 20.03 Markhor Go / No-Go - When2meet

Come Prepared

During this call we will review bugs in the 20.03 milestone, and this is also your chance to propose other release blocking bugs or pull requests for review. Please attach these proposals to this thread so they can be collected ahead of time for the call. The outcome of this meeting is to decide if we’re ready to release, or if it needs to be delayed within reason. Ultimately this final decision will be up to the discretion of the release managers (@worldofpeace and @disassembler).

What is a blocker?

A blocker issue is a bug that must be fixed and blocks the milestone releases.
We cannot proceed without them being fixed or having known workarounds. Things that aren’t right for this meeting are bugs that would “be nice to have” or are non-essential. Blocker bugs will affect critical path things such as everything already in the 20.03 jobset’s tested constituents and anything else we consider to be critical path for NixOS.

Agenda

  1. A brief explanation of the intentions of the meeting
  2. Roll call: participants will identify what subsystems and users they are representing.
  3. Blocker evaluation: review each listed bug and related issues and decide on priority. Make sure your bug is in this thread before the meeting.
  4. Release Notes Review
  5. Go / No-Go Decision: We will likely release even with known issues. The goal here is to decide which ones are blocking and not.
  6. Setting the Goal Date: what day should we have these completed by, or the release is going on without them?

Thanks, Graham

12 Likes
2

Respecting boundaries, I’m going to just leave this here: :v:
Thank you Graham :heart:

2 Likes
3

Real quick, if we have a Go decision, what’s a rough estimate till ETA?

4

We can usually toggle the “stable release” flag and get a release out within a few hours, so it is pretty quick. Though it isn’t uncommon for us to release on the 35th to 40th of the month.

18 Likes
5

We still have to do the final task of ZHF, which has to wait for the very last minute, and that’s to mark every package (with in reason for evaluation) that is failing to build as broken ZERO Hydra Failures 20.03 · Issue #80379 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub.

Edit: I’m now thinking I should make it a separate bug outside ZHF to add in the milestone as a blocker Mark failing to build packages in 20.03 as broken · Issue #83805 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub

3 Likes
6

Hey @ttuegel, it would be nice if we could have you present for QT/Plasma5.

3 Likes
7

I’ll be there for NixOS modules in general and Haskell infra

5 Likes
8

Thank you guys for doing so much hard work. Stay safe.

9

From my side it’s a GO as soon as we fix evaluation errors.

1 Like
10

I’ll hopefully be there for NixOS Containers, some services with a non-trivial upgrade paths (such as Nextcloud, matrix-synapse etc.) and (if needed) for issues with bigger rebuilds (after helping out during the gcc9 and glibc-2.31 upgrade).

Please attach these proposals to this thread so they can be collected ahead of time for the call

The only thing I came up with is this:

11

I think #82295 should be merged. It is just an addition to release notes, informing people that they won’t get IPv4 addresses on bridges via DHCP on nixos-20.03 anymore.

This almost locked me out of my machine and might break other peoples setup when the release happens.

3 Likes
12

glibc-2.30 libraries link to glibc-2.27 · Issue #84043 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub just popped up (thankfully since I was getting these errors frequently) and I think we should fix it before the release as it breaks in ugly ways and it’s hard to workaround.

2 Likes
13

We’re missing artwork for the news item on the website :frowning:

2 Likes
14

The only serious Plasma issue I know of is:

I would not consider this blocking because there are workarounds.

15

Hello everyone, the meeting will be tomorrow:

2020-04-03T19:00:00Z → 2020-04-03T20:00:00Z

(3PM America/New_York; Every Time Zone: time zone converter, compare time zone difference and find best time for a meeting with one click)

at this meeting URL: Jitsi Meet and in #nixos-dev on IRC.

Make sure you have tickets written down :slight_smile:

7 Likes
16

worldofpeace and disasm decided NO-GO at this time, and to have second review meeting at the same time on Wednesday: 2020-04-08T19:00:00Z → 2020-04-08T20:00:00Z

We’ll use the same video call: Jitsi Meet

Here are the notes from today’s meeting:

present:

  • samueldr
  • “dan” Dandellion
  • aanderse
  • andi
  • worldofpeace
  • chris l-f
  • infinisil
  • doron behar
  • eelco
  • ma27
  • fridh
  • ttuegel
  • lnl
  • drakonis
  • graham
  • flokli
  • disasm
  • unknown

reviewed:

we are blocking on:

needs help with:

6 Likes
17

Forgot about

it’s very important that we merge this at the same time we release updates to the website.

2 Likes
18

I’d also like to mention, since we lack a “NixOS Release Criteria”, if your subsystem wasn’t represented in this meeting and there’s something you’d consider a blocker, now is the time to mention this.

19

Samuel Leathers (@disassembler) and I decided NO-GO today in the meeting.
We’re going to have another review meeting on Friday: 2020-04-10T19:00:00Z → 2020-04-08T20:00:00Z.

Video call link: https://meet.jit.si/GoMarkhorGo

Present representing a subsystem:

  • worldofpeace
  • disasm
  • aanderse
  • ttuegel
  • flokli
  • sphalerite
  • 
 (sorry)

I wasn’t prepared to take notes, the video will help with who was representing what at the beginning.
It seems also that some people assumed it would be next week Friday, so we had some missing people.

Reviewed
Anything not reviewed this time has been fixed :sparkles:

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/84409

@mic92 and @flokli have been assigned to fix this.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/84221

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/82295

Me @worldofpeace can review and merge.
If I don’t :wave: I probably need/ed help.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/83805

@disassembler and I @worldofpeace would handle for releasing 20.03

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/79180

I need to finish this. I decided I can draft it in markdown and it will be translated to docbook :heart:

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/84391

Brought up by @flokli (I believe), we decided it wasn’t a blocker.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/61718

I don’t think this was a blocker either, but an errata in the release notes would be great.

Issues with Intel GPU’s in the default kernel 5.4.
(link portal)

I brought it up tangentially, I don’t recall the status of this because I haven’t been able to track kernel development very well. It would be helpful if someone in the know with kernel can followup on it (@vcunat maybe since you did the bump). Last time I checked this was even a problem on one of my laptop’s.

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/82455

@samueldr wasn’t in the meeting, so I couldn’t followup on it.
We talked in IRC and decided it wasn’t a 20.03 blocker:

Decided Blockers

Link to issues and PRs labeled
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3A"1.severity%3A+blocker"+milestone%3A20.03

If there’s anything missed, LMK.
worldofpeace :v:

4 Likes
20

The acme regression will be hopefully addressed here: acme: create certificates in subdirectory by Mic92 · Pull Request #84781 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub