00:02 <travier[m]> I've reviewed it again

00:02 <adamw> dustymabe: your ssl cert expired

00:02 <adamw> yesterday

00:16 <dustymabe> adamw: fun I had set a reminder for myself, but you know :)

00:17 <dustymabe> i'll fix it

00:17 <adamw> ah, reminders, those things you impatiently click away

14:39 <dustymabe> hey aobrien[m] let's rename tests/kola/systemd/test.sh to something a little more specific. `cosa kola run ext.config.systemd` seems like you are doing a comprehensive systemd test and that's not the case here

14:40 <dustymabe> maybe `git mv test.sh default-unit-timeouts`? and then it will be `cosa kola run ext.config.systemd.default-unit-timeouts`

14:45 <dustymabe> jlebon: aaradhak[m] it's probably about time to switch next-devel over to f38 content

14:50 <jlebon> dustymabe: don't we usually wait for Beta?

14:54 <dustymabe> The goal is to release `next` on f38 (beta content) when the beta ships. So we need to start preparing for that.

14:55 <dustymabe> I believe that's the way we've operated in the past.

14:56 <dustymabe> presumably the next `next` that goes out will be on f38

14:57 <jlebon> ahh indeed. didn't realize it was the next one already

14:57 <jlebon> SGTM

15:00 <dustymabe> release notes for this round: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-streams/pull/659

15:03 <dustymabe> aaradhak[m]: marmijo[m]: mind a review on https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-pipeline/pull/829 ?

15:04 <dustymabe> jlebon: we might as well disable `branched` when we make that `next-devel` switch too

15:04 <dustymabe> since the value is lessened - I think I updated the steps for this last time I did it

15:05 <dustymabe> jlebon: looking at the rebase tracker I could probably add a `Preparing for Fedora (N) Beta` section and put some things there

15:06 <cverna> I need a review for this week releases' rollout please, https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-streams/pull/658

15:06 <aaradhak[m]> I had opened a PR for 'next-devel' - https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/2254 . Looks like the next-devel branch was closed when I had created it.

15:06 <marmijo[m]> dustymabe: LGTM

15:06 <aaradhak[m]> * I had opened a PR for 'next-devel' - https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/2254 . got a bot message that the next-devel branch was closed when I had created it.

15:06 <aaradhak[m]> * I had opened a PR for 'next-devel' - https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/2254 . got a bot message that the next-devel branch was closed when I had created it. Kindly review this PR.

15:11 <jlebon> cverna: might need a page refresh. merged that one earlier today :)

15:11 <jlebon> aaradhak[m]: yes, we'll re-enable it as part of the steps for this

16:46 <cverna> jlebon: thanks :)

17:16 <dustymabe> gursewak: FYI there are some snoozes about to expire so just keep that in mind as you monitor pipeline failures in the coming days

17:17 <gursewak> Will do*

17:48 <jdoss> supposed I wanted to mount the rootfs img of FCOS to do some misguided things. Do you folks have any hott tips for doing so? mount -o loop fedora-coreos-37.20230218.3.0-live-rootfs.x86_64.img /tmp/rootfs results in failure.

17:54 <jdoss> Never fails. Ask in IRC. figure it out 5min later. cat fedora-coreos-37.20230218.3.0-live-rootfs.x86_64.img | cpio -idmv

18:10 <dustymabe> jlebon: mind a review on https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/2254 since both me and aaradhak[m] have commits in there (I won't allow myself to review)

18:11 <dustymabe> jdoss: if you didn't ask, you wouldn't have figured it out on your own, though

18:11 <jdoss> True, very true.

18:16 <jdoss> dustymabe: on FCOS first boot, is there something that is called that sets up /var ?

18:48 <pwhalen> Good afternoon coreos folks, looking to get a couple packages included in F38 beta, but wanted to check with you folks first before filing FE's- would there be any objection to upgrading to ignition-2.15.0-3.fc38 and a new build for coreos-installer so we can have coreos-installer-dracut included?

19:18 <jlebon> dustymabe: were you going to go through the pkg change, or should I?

19:21 <dustymabe> pwhalen: I don't see why not. If there are bodhi updates for them already then I'd say go for it if you can get them approved as FE

19:23 <pwhalen> dustymabe: there is one for ignition, but coreos-installer still has a pending PR and would need a build.

19:24 <dustymabe> pwhalen: you probably need to talk to bgilbert or spresti[m] then

19:25 <pwhalen> dustymabe: ok, will do. Thank you

19:26 <dustymabe> jlebon: i was thinking about it as I was going through the diff for https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/2254 but definitely have other things I'd like to work on. What would be nice is if we could start a list and maintain the level of detail like what was done in https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1128

19:29 <jlebon> dustymabe: i can go over it. though if you don't mind, i'd prefer commenting inline in the PR and if there's anything we want to dig further into I can open separate tracker issues.

19:33 <dustymabe> ehh, The reason I went through the trouble in f36 is because we go through this each time we "promote" so I just link back to the comment from the tracker issue each time.

19:33 <dustymabe> It's also nice because you don't have to dig to find the reasonings

19:34 <dustymabe> just go to the tracker issue and click on the entry in the description and that takes you to the rationale

19:34 <dustymabe> honestly we should probably just be doing this for rawhide all the time and then by the time we get to this point all the data would be filled out

19:34 <dustymabe> but that would require us to be doing it all the time

19:34 <dustymabe> which is good and bad

19:35 <dustymabe> if you don't want to put them in the tracker issue I can do the looking, it's only fair since I'm the one asking for more

19:39 <jlebon> yeah, exactly. this is too late in the process. one idea is an external kola test that only runs on rawhide and compares against the latest testing-devel build for changes and we maintain the allowlist of changes in the test itself. would require maintainance but automates the looking.

19:39 <jlebon> nah, it's fine. i'll file it

20:04 <aobrien[m]> just pushed the last changes 🙂

20:04 <aobrien[m]> <dustymabe> "aobrien: did you want to..." <- Yup no problem!

20:04 <aobrien[m]> <dustymabe> "hey aobrien let's rename tests/..." <- that should be pushed now! 🙂

20:05 <dustymabe> hmm are those messages delayed from earlier or something?

20:05 <dustymabe> we already merged https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/2247 some time ago

20:06 <gnfzdz> Using ostree native containers, if I create a custom base image using an Ansible playbook is there a pattern that can be used to chunk the resulting image similar to rpm-ostree compose container-encapsulate?

20:06 <gnfzdz> ostree container unencapsulate seemed promising, but I can't seem to figure out a valid imgref

20:06 <dustymabe> pwhalen: FYI you might want to give https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-fdf3721184 a spin + karma - see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172956

20:09 <pwhalen> thanks dustymabe, will do

22:00 <walters> gnfzdz: Not right now, rpm-ostree's "chunking" is pretty specific to rpm content and puts everything else in a single bucket. But, one can create custom build tooling to perform "splitting"/chunking however you like. I commented here https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree-rs-ext/issues/11#issuecomment-1458931382