2024-02-19 19:35:46 <@humaton:fedora.im> !startmeeting FESCO (2024-02-19)

2024-02-19 19:35:47 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-02-19 19:35:46 UTC
2024-02-19 19:35:47 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2024-02-19)'
2024-02-19 19:35:53 <@humaton:fedora.im> !meetingname fesco

2024-02-19 19:36:01 <@humaton:fedora.im> Chairs: @conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @nirik:matrix.scrye.com, @humaton:fedora.im, @zbyszek:fedora.im, @sgallagh:fedora.im, @jistone:fedora.im, @dcantrell:fedora.im, @mhayden:fedora.im, @tstellar:fedora.im
2024-02-19 19:36:07 <@humaton:fedora.im> !topic Init Process

2024-02-19 19:36:37 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> !hello
2024-02-19 19:36:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> David Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his
2024-02-19 19:36:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-02-19 19:36:46 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-02-19 19:36:50 <@humaton:fedora.im> !hi
2024-02-19 19:36:51 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Tomáš Hrčka (humaton) - he / him / his
2024-02-19 19:37:48 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> !hi
2024-02-19 19:37:49 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jiří Konečný (jkonecny)
2024-02-19 19:39:36 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> I'll try to be available but it will be harder for me
2024-02-19 19:40:26 <@humaton:fedora.im> we don't have quorum yet, will give it few more minutes
2024-02-19 19:41:24 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I'm almost here. Just need to walk up the stairs ;)
2024-02-19 19:45:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nirik's username says he's on PTO
2024-02-19 19:46:21 <@humaton:fedora.im> yup he is but we will have quorum once zbyszek is home
2024-02-19 19:46:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, sorry dcantrell, i didn't see you registered her and pinged you elsewhere
2024-02-19 19:46:58 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I'm home. Sorry.
2024-02-19 19:47:30 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> no worries, I just responded elsewhere
2024-02-19 19:47:34 <@humaton:fedora.im> so we have quorum if I count correctly
2024-02-19 19:48:09 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'm also on PTO, but I can spare a few minutes
2024-02-19 19:48:48 <@humaton:fedora.im> !topic 3158 Change: Arm Minimal Image OS Build 
2024-02-19 19:48:57 <@humaton:fedora.im> !fesco 3158
2024-02-19 19:48:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3158** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3158):**Change: Arm Minimal Image OS Build**

● **Opened:** 3 weeks ago by amoloney
● **Last Updated:** 5 hours ago
● **Assignee:** pbrobinson
2024-02-19 19:49:22 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> A bunch of people voted, but it wasn't clear if there still are issues.
2024-02-19 19:49:28 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Or questions…
2024-02-19 19:51:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'm not sure what there is left to discuss. As far as I know 1) Peter responded with the information requested and 2) no one has voted -1
2024-02-19 19:52:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I have held back my vote because I didn't want to appear antagonistic.
2024-02-19 19:52:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> But as-is, with no fedora-blueprints repo with _some kind_ of description of what the ARM image even _is_, I seriously hesitate to vote in favor of it
2024-02-19 19:53:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't want a release blocking image that I have no idea how it's made
2024-02-19 19:53:13 <@humaton:fedora.im> this
2024-02-19 19:53:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> or what defines the content included
2024-02-19 19:53:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if forced to vote now, I will vote -1
2024-02-19 19:53:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but I have deliberately held back my vote because I was hoping this would be resolved before we got here
2024-02-19 19:54:12 <@humaton:fedora.im> I am reading through Peters response and this will be mess for next release process, we need to have clearly defined place where the blueprint is 
2024-02-19 19:54:25 <@humaton:fedora.im> so releng can check/ modify the iimages as needed
2024-02-19 19:54:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> not a fesco member, but representing quality, i'd be concerned about further delays to voting or implementing this. we're one week from beta freeze and this is a complete change in how a release-blocking image is built
2024-02-19 19:54:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> fwiw, we have the same problem with the workstation osbuild image too, but because it's nonblocking, I'm... less concerned
2024-02-19 19:54:53 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Oh, I thought this is for F41.
2024-02-19 19:55:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> no, this is being pushed for F40
2024-02-19 19:55:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it says "Targeted release: Fedora Linux 40"
2024-02-19 19:55:30 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Hmm, that is concerning. I would expect the blueprints to be essentially ready at this point, if this is to be implemented for F41.
2024-02-19 19:55:48 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Hmm, that is concerning. I would expect the blueprints to be essentially ready at this point, if this is to be implemented for <del>F41.</del> F40.
2024-02-19 19:55:51 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> We can't really not have those for Beta.
2024-02-19 19:56:35 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> And the same goes for changes to Pungi. I would expect the pull requests to be under review by now.
2024-02-19 19:57:56 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> My chief concern has been I have no idea what defines or controls any of the osbuild-based artifacts
2024-02-19 19:58:01 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> zbyszek: To be fair, the delay is at least largely our fault in not moving forward on this tikcet
2024-02-19 19:58:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> today, we have two: Fedora IoT and non-blocking Workstation
2024-02-19 19:58:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't really want a third with Fedora ARM
2024-02-19 19:59:06 <@davide:cavalca.name> is there something specific about osbuild that makes it hard to publish the blueprints for these?
2024-02-19 19:59:21 <@davide:cavalca.name> like, if we're building them the blueprints have to be _somewhere_ already...
2024-02-19 19:59:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't know.
2024-02-19 19:59:48 <@smooge:fedora.im> there shouldn't be
2024-02-19 20:00:14 <@smooge:fedora.im> that said, I mainly use osbuild-mpp for building images
2024-02-19 20:00:27 <@obudai:fedora.im> AFAIK the minimal build is just an empty blueprint.
2024-02-19 20:00:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> When davdunc and I investigated it for Fedora Cloud, the answer we got was that blueprints cannot fully define images nor can they fully control the process for building them. But they do have _some_ information regardless.
2024-02-19 20:01:09 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> So we have no examples of a useful blueprint, but we want to make it a prerequisite for this Change?
2024-02-19 20:01:46 <@smooge:fedora.im> I was thinking it was more like 'we have no idea of what work is needed to make this change happen'
2024-02-19 20:01:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Yes.
2024-02-19 20:02:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Also, I have no idea what it looks like when something breaks.
2024-02-19 20:02:05 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> And also, we have no idea how this is going to look when implemented.
2024-02-19 20:02:50 <@obudai:fedora.im> Hmm, isn't the IoT SIG already doing test builds in Koji?
2024-02-19 20:02:51 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> And, also, where will all the config live and who will have access/control.
2024-02-19 20:02:53 <@humaton:fedora.im> + there is not much experience with osbuild in releng
2024-02-19 20:03:20 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Link?
2024-02-19 20:03:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> zbyszek: When I talked with Peter, he indicated that documenting that was intended to be part of the deliverable
2024-02-19 20:04:23 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yes, documenting this is good. But in general, for Changes we approve, I think we should have at least an outline idea what the answers to such questions are. 
2024-02-19 20:04:35 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I.e. before we approve it.
2024-02-19 20:05:38 <@humaton:fedora.im> we are over 15 minutes on the topic
2024-02-19 20:05:54 <@obudai:fedora.im> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113239754
2024-02-19 20:06:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that task has no pointer to source input definitions
2024-02-19 20:06:24 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Thanks obudai, this is useful.
2024-02-19 20:07:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> anyway, I'm comfortable being the sole -1, but I am uncomfortable with having image builds where we don't have source definitions for
2024-02-19 20:08:23 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Hmm, so how does it work without a source definition?
2024-02-19 20:08:25 <@humaton:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: I am -1 on this as well 
2024-02-19 20:08:29 <@davide:cavalca.name> is the expectations that users should be able to recreate image build artifacts?
2024-02-19 20:08:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2024-02-19 20:08:46 <@davide:cavalca.name> if we don't have source definitions that seems difficult, but I don't know if it's an actual requirement
2024-02-19 20:08:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> zbyszek: aiui, the definitions are kind of baked into osbuild, at this point
2024-02-19 20:08:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but also that if we have to dev/troubleshoot images, reproducing them is important
2024-02-19 20:09:00 <@adamwill:fedora.im> e.g. i *suspect* the 'definition' for that task was, more or less, https://github.com/osbuild/osbuild/blob/43c83c01e6150a52cf8c1da6bc4c01bc9a7ba835/test/data/manifests/fedora-ostree-bootiso.mpp.yaml#L27
2024-02-19 20:10:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i think the problem Conan Kudo is identifying is the way this stuff is baked into the build tool means we don't really know what version of the manifest was used , the images aren't reproducible without knowing what state the image builder instance was in when the image was built
2024-02-19 20:10:27 <@humaton:fedora.im> do we have more to discuss on this topic or are we going to vote?
2024-02-19 20:10:32 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> That also seems like a really really bad design.
2024-02-19 20:10:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Yes. More or less.
2024-02-19 20:11:13 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> So I think I'd like to withdraw my +1 vote for now. I thought I generally understand what this is about, but now I feel like the description doesn't have nearly enough details.
2024-02-19 20:11:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> As it stands, -1 for me
2024-02-19 20:11:34 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (and, of course, fedora releng has no commit access to osbuild repos and doesn't control its deployment, so is reliant on other parties to fix any problems)
2024-02-19 20:11:57 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> fwiw, (again, hi, lurking...) -- I did find [this](https://github.com/osbuild/fedora-blueprints) repository -- not sure if that is known or not.. just researching myself
2024-02-19 20:11:59 <@humaton:fedora.im> that is basicaly base of my -1
2024-02-19 20:12:30 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> I was going to vote 0, but I'll join -1 based on this conversation
2024-02-19 20:13:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> e.g. i _suspect_ the 'definition' for that task was, more or less, https://github.com/osbuild/osbuild/blob/43c83c01e6150a52cf8c1da6bc4c01bc9a7ba835/test/data/manifests/fedora-ostree-bootiso.mpp.yaml#L27

edit: actually i think that's test data, but the overall point remains. i can't actually find where the 'real' iot manifest lives, which rather illustrates the problem.
2024-02-19 20:13:54 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Before voting -1, could you enumerate what *precisely* you want to see added to the proposal?
2024-02-19 20:14:54 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> gummi bears
2024-02-19 20:15:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> For me to change to +1, I want a pagure.io/fedora-blueprints with the blueprint file for this image that can be used to orchestrate this build in Koji
2024-02-19 20:15:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> neil gave a cookie to dcantrell. They now have 12 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
2024-02-19 20:15:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that _needs_ to work so that we have a process around the image similar to what we have elsewhere
2024-02-19 20:15:53 <@humaton:fedora.im> For me it is documentation for Fedora Release Engineering to be able to replicate/modify the contents of resulting artifact
2024-02-19 20:15:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> e.g. i _suspect_ the 'definition' for that task was, more or less, https://github.com/osbuild/osbuild/blob/43c83c01e6150a52cf8c1da6bc4c01bc9a7ba835/test/data/manifests/fedora-ostree-bootiso.mpp.yaml#L27

edit: actually i think that's test data, but the overall point remains. i can't actually find where the 'real' iot manifest lives, which rather illustrates the problem. possibly it's part of https://github.com/osbuild/images .
2024-02-19 20:16:37 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Is it necessary to dictate the technology or is jednorozec 's statement sufficient?
2024-02-19 20:16:57 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> If we add "to releng's satisfaction" inthere
2024-02-19 20:17:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> If we add "to releng's satisfaction" in there
2024-02-19 20:17:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I am using specific terms in osbuild parlance
2024-02-19 20:17:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if we can't even use the osbuild way to define images to run fedora images, we have a problem
2024-02-19 20:18:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> probably `fedora-osbuild-blueprints` as a repo name
2024-02-19 20:18:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't really care
2024-02-19 20:18:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but I expect that jednorozec and my statements don't conflict, mine is just more specific than his
2024-02-19 20:19:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm not sure blueprints will necessarily achieve the desired effect? it's interesting to me that https://github.com/osbuild/fedora-blueprints states "Generally the blueprints (found in blueprints/) are much shorter than their kickstart counterparts. That is because in osbuild-composer a lot of work is handled by the image type."
2024-02-19 20:20:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> which implies that even with a blueprint-driven image, some of the work of 'defining the image' is happening elsewhere
2024-02-19 20:21:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and e.g. https://github.com/osbuild/fedora-blueprints/blob/main/blueprints/workstation-live-iso.toml has a comment that says "These packages are installed upon the 'base' fedora as defined in `osbuild-composer`."
2024-02-19 20:22:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's discouraging
2024-02-19 20:22:36 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> I think it's defined here: https://github.com/osbuild/images but obudai will know much better than me
2024-02-19 20:22:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and e.g. https://github.com/osbuild/fedora-blueprints/blob/main/blueprints/workstation-live-iso.toml has a comment that says "These packages are installed upon the 'base' fedora as defined in `osbuild-composer`.", which I believe refers to https://github.com/osbuild/osbuild-composer . so again we wind up with a definition of "fedora" which is outside of fedora's direct control, I think?
2024-02-19 20:23:23 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> that was my read as well
2024-02-19 20:25:25 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> this is what lmc didn't do.  input was just a kickstart file.  I never understood the obsession with osbuild and replacing a DSL that was established and worked, but whatever
2024-02-19 20:25:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess to a degree this kinda exists with koji; koji does some 'business logic' and there's no rule that says fedora releng can commit to koji. but we at least control fedora's koji deployment and can patch it at will
2024-02-19 20:26:01 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: To answer your question: I would like to understand how the workflow is supposed to work, and what parts are needed, and who can modify the config (assuming that there's a separate config from the code). jednorozec's request for "documentation for Fedora Release Engineering to be able to replicate/modify the contents of resulting artifact" would probably answer those questions.
2024-02-19 20:26:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i guess to a degree this kinda exists with koji; koji does some 'business logic' and there's no rule that says fedora releng can commit to the upstream koji project. but we at least control fedora's koji deployment and can patch it at will
2024-02-19 20:26:48 <@humaton:fedora.im> So I am not sure what to do now we are already 50 mins on this topic. And there are obviously some more questions we need to get answered
2024-02-19 20:26:58 <@humaton:fedora.im> This is the first time I am running this meeting
2024-02-19 20:27:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> this is fine
2024-02-19 20:27:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jednorozec: Gather a list of the required information we need to make a decision, then punt for a week.
2024-02-19 20:27:49 <@obudai:fedora.im> I'm concerned by the requirement to replicate the build... That's already possible, install osbuild-composer, build an iot-bootable-contianer image with an empty blueprint. You get what koji would build.
2024-02-19 20:28:26 <@humaton:fedora.im> Is there a documentation page that somebody with minimal experience can folllow and build stuff?
2024-02-19 20:28:26 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> That being said, at this point "punt for a week" is effectively a deferral, I suppose.
2024-02-19 20:28:31 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Since we'll be at Beta Freeze
2024-02-19 20:28:43 <@adamwill:fedora.im> right. i really wouldn't want this to land during freeze.
2024-02-19 20:29:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> who deploys and controls the osbuild instance used for those iot builds? do we know if this proposal involves using that instance, or the one that seems to behind a red hat firewall which is used for the non-blocking workstation live osbuild builds?
2024-02-19 20:32:12 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Can we build the F40 images with the old imagefactory pipeline? I.e. if we don't approve this, can we still put out F40.
2024-02-19 20:32:14 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Can we build the F40 images with the old imagefactory pipeline? I.e. if we don't approve this, can we still put out F40?
2024-02-19 20:32:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2024-02-19 20:33:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> imagefactory is still around for F40, the idea is it'll be gone in F41 and everyone needs to come up with a replacement (either lorax, kiwi, or osbuild) for F41
2024-02-19 20:33:56 <@obudai:fedora.im> huh? I don't know of any IB stuff for Fedora behind the firewall? But yeah, the Image Builder team is currently running a part of the infrastructure.
2024-02-19 20:34:08 <@obudai:fedora.im> Nah, you cannot use ImageFactory for ostree native stuff.
2024-02-19 20:34:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> obudai: sorry if i'm wrong there, i'm finding it hard to know exactly what image builder instance(s) we have
2024-02-19 20:34:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Please expand on this?
2024-02-19 20:35:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i was looking at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113734470 , where an osbuild workstation live failed because of problems with sso.redhat.com
2024-02-19 20:35:30 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Are you saying "No, we can't ship F40 using ImageFactory because of the container-native stuff"?
2024-02-19 20:36:46 <@obudai:fedora.im> Ahhh, this is the minimal image!
2024-02-19 20:36:48 <@obudai:fedora.im> Sorry!
2024-02-19 20:37:01 <@obudai:fedora.im> I don't know about that.
2024-02-19 20:37:19 <@humaton:fedora.im> ok
2024-02-19 20:37:32 <@humaton:fedora.im> !agreed punt this topic for a week
2024-02-19 20:37:33 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> if you are talking about container native usage for Atomic Desktops. There were already discussion to use bootc-osbuild for that because it would be probably easier than implementing support for Lorax
2024-02-19 20:37:51 <@humaton:fedora.im> I wrote comment to the original ticket with some questions
2024-02-19 20:37:58 <@humaton:fedora.im> will add more points after the meeting
2024-02-19 20:38:07 <@humaton:fedora.im> !topic 3169 Weigh in on installer storage setup issue
2024-02-19 20:38:20 <@humaton:fedora.im> !fesco 3169
2024-02-19 20:38:21 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3169** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3169):**Weigh in on installer storage setup issue**

● **Opened:** 6 days ago by sgallagh
● **Last Updated:** an hour ago
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
2024-02-19 20:38:55 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Everyone refresh, if you have the ticket open, there has been a bunch of comments within the last few hours.
2024-02-19 20:39:02 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> now for the easier meeting item  :)
2024-02-19 20:40:26 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> At least here, we know what is happening and the development plans are rather clear. We just don't like what is happening and disagree with the development plans.
2024-02-19 20:41:09 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> sorry added one more comment just now 😄 -- just confirmation
2024-02-19 20:41:36 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Half-serious question: can we just make it hard to find the custom partitioning option in the installer, buried behind "This will eat your data"  and possibly a "Beware of leopard" warning click-through?
2024-02-19 20:41:55 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> we already doing that
2024-02-19 20:42:11 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> if you click on the button you have a popup with all the warnings and red letters
2024-02-19 20:42:36 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> and one more warning sign on the top of the Cockpit Storage screen whole time
2024-02-19 20:42:57 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> I will say one of the biggest improvements we made to anaconda in the past was modeling storage changes before making users commit the changes to the system.  We received nothing but positive feedback on that aspect.  To undo that would be a huge backslide, IMHO.
2024-02-19 20:43:14 <@zodbot:fedora.im> sgallagh gave a cookie to dcantrell. They now have 13 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
2024-02-19 20:43:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I have a very nasty feeling we'll be roasted by reviewers once that's noticed too.
2024-02-19 20:43:27 <@zodbot:fedora.im> humaton gave a cookie to dcantrell. They now have 14 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
2024-02-19 20:43:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> The reviewers aren't my first concern... but they're definitely in the top three.
2024-02-19 20:43:51 <@zodbot:fedora.im> decathorpe gave a cookie to dcantrell. They now have 15 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
2024-02-19 20:44:13 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> dcantrell: I'm surprised to hear that my feedback was that people are not happy about that much... but yeah, it was mostly about it's too complicated (which honestly is - yeah Linux storage is super complicated)
2024-02-19 20:44:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> users trying to install fedora is my first, reviewers are my second, me is third
2024-02-19 20:44:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I will easily accidentally break things with immediate apply partitioning
2024-02-19 20:44:47 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> My biggest concern is the fact that many people installing Fedora tend to fall into Dunning-Kruger when faced with "basic vs. advanced" choices.
2024-02-19 20:45:03 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> it's true, storage configuration is complicated.  that was a constant balancing act of how do you actively maintain a fast moving installer for something like Fedora but also keep around the functionality needed for products like RHEL.  we didn't want two installers
2024-02-19 20:45:10 <@cmurf:fedora.im> design it so the reviewers can't find it? (this is a bad joke, therefore laugh)
2024-02-19 20:45:12 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> The way I see the problem is: ~50% of users will try some for of non-automatic storage configuration. (This incl. fully manual setups and automatic-setup-with-adjustments.)  And the interface we have right now for this is bad. Doing any kind of setup with more than two partitions is hard to do correctly, slow, and annoying.
2024-02-19 20:45:15 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Yeah, same :)
2024-02-19 20:45:21 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if you give me about ten minutes i can post some screenshots
2024-02-19 20:45:24 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> the most common use cases for storage were the single disk laptop user and then the RHEL customer with 100000 LUNs
2024-02-19 20:45:25 <@adamwill:fedora.im> since the UI *just* changed again today
2024-02-19 20:45:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I guess we're operating at the speed of webdev
2024-02-19 20:45:43 <@zodbot:fedora.im> jkonecny gave a cookie to dcantrell. They now have 16 cookies, 6 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
2024-02-19 20:45:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> to see the current state , https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/2427050/asset/iso/02427050-Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-FEDORA-2024-273de1817d.iso should work
2024-02-19 20:45:45 <@cmurf:fedora.im> My recollection of the installer refresh ~10 years ago, is the commitment to user data, and a very clear and consistent threshold for reversibility: begin installation button. Reverting from this seems awkward.
2024-02-19 20:46:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes, the idea was that nothing is committed until you hit "begin installation"
2024-02-19 20:46:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> at the time, no other installer did that, it was a huge innovation
2024-02-19 20:46:42 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> we've basically spent a decade training users to trust that
2024-02-19 20:47:01 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> it would be bad for a long time user's muscle memory lead to loss of /home
2024-02-19 20:47:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we probably need to be realistic about the degree to which fesco can dictate the developers' design choices here, though
2024-02-19 20:47:17 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and acknowledge the constraints that are in operation
2024-02-19 20:47:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Let me be perfectly clear: I would rather see us ship with *only guided partitioning* than to ship with "instant-apply" custom partitioning.
2024-02-19 20:47:38 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Can I be any clearer?
2024-02-19 20:47:49 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Want to make you obvious that Installer team is not able to maintain reasonably even the current custom partitioning nor create a new one
2024-02-19 20:47:54 <@cmurf:fedora.im> yeah i was wondering about the consequences of shipping with only guided...
2024-02-19 20:48:01 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> the current one is lacking 
2024-02-19 20:48:10 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> VDO nor Stratis are supported
2024-02-19 20:48:27 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> and we were not able to get to that at all in the last few years
2024-02-19 20:48:36 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> we just don't have capacity to keep that
2024-02-19 20:48:58 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> when the current custom partitioning screen was created the installer team had about 10 members now it's about 3 
2024-02-19 20:49:53 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Proposal: Graphical installer should only ship with guided partitioning (possibly with a limited selection of known-common configurations). Custom partitioning must be done manually using other tools prior to launching the installer or limited to kickstart-based installs.
2024-02-19 20:49:59 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> cmurf: only guided partitioning could be used but you would kill the GIS session basically
2024-02-19 20:50:45 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: so the challenge with 'custom partitioning must be done manually prior to launching the installer' is, to a rough approximation, *nobody* actually knows what partitions they have to create
2024-02-19 20:50:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Stephen Gallagher: note that this would guarantee that Fedora KDE will stick with the gtk-based UI for the foreseeable future
2024-02-19 20:50:55 <@adamwill:fedora.im> nobody knows or remembers about biosboot partitions or EFI system partitions
2024-02-19 20:50:56 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> also what would be the benefit of it? To me the question is still more about make it obvious to users that they are not blocked on this tool nor this is part of Anaconda workflow -- it's just an external tool they can use
2024-02-19 20:51:15 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: Which is why the graphical environment should only present the guided mode :)
2024-02-19 20:51:36 <@davide:cavalca.name> probably a dumb idea: can we ship gparted in the ISO and tell users to run that before the installer if they want custom partitioning?
2024-02-19 20:51:45 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> haha
2024-02-19 20:51:47 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> come on
2024-02-19 20:51:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Davide Cavalca: the problematic workflow is the one jkonency refers to as "g-i-s"
2024-02-19 20:52:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I mean... if we did that, we might as well tell people to use blivet-gui
2024-02-19 20:52:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because unlike gparted, blivet-gui actually supports everything
2024-02-19 20:52:23 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Davide Cavalca: also in the future it will be the same situation with network installations
2024-02-19 20:52:36 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> and boot.iso
2024-02-19 20:52:40 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this is where you boot the live image, go through two pages of g-i-s to set language and keyboard layout, then you get two choices
2024-02-19 20:53:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if you hit "Install to Disk..." there, you are put in a minimal environment running anaconda, there is no 'desktop'
2024-02-19 20:53:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> on this flow there really isn't an opportunity to launch a custom partitioning tool other than whatever opportunity anaconda gives you. unless we crowbarred one into that g-i-s screen, or something.
2024-02-19 20:53:30 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> blivet-gui have one active developer (who has this as his pet project) and one blocker bug
2024-02-19 20:54:25 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> just for the record - this Gnome Initial Setup workflow was requested by Workstation SIG
2024-02-19 20:54:32 <@adamwill:fedora.im> screenshots, hot off the press, with the new anaconda-webui as of a couple of hours ago: this is the main screen you see immediately after the screen above, if you clikc "Install to Disk..."
2024-02-19 20:54:34 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> wasn't part of the origin proposal
2024-02-19 20:55:01 <@adamwill:fedora.im> those are all your partitioning choices. The "Modify storage" text launches the cockpit-based custom flow.
2024-02-19 20:55:03 <@cmurf:fedora.im> I've missed the leap from guided path doesn't support GIS - so I'm running into a brickwall conclusion that guided only is untenable? is that correct?
2024-02-19 20:55:18 <@adamwill:fedora.im> that looks like this
2024-02-19 20:56:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> :(
2024-02-19 20:56:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so it's not substantially different
2024-02-19 20:56:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the 'delete' option for any existing device is red, and clicking it shows this:
2024-02-19 20:56:41 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> cmurf: no - guided is usable everywhere, the issue is that Workstation SIG requested to have solution for a few use-cases which are not yet covered by that. IIRC they explicitly wanted to have a custom partitioning replacement Conan Kudo would maybe remember better
2024-02-19 20:57:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> The biggest use-case still missing was preserving users
2024-02-19 20:57:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and user data
2024-02-19 20:57:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that is not supported in any guided workflow, and requires custom partitioning
2024-02-19 20:57:30 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> you can do that with Mount point assignment
2024-02-19 20:57:45 <@cmurf:fedora.im> OK I think the live action dialogs needs to include "immediate" to convey this is permanent life altering event is actually going to happen right now
2024-02-19 20:57:49 <@humaton:fedora.im> I will destroy number of partitions with this new approach
2024-02-19 20:58:14 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> jednorozec: I wonder why would you do that?
2024-02-19 20:58:29 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> That's a terrible UX for that. Probably we should add a lot more explanation below that option
2024-02-19 20:58:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hum, and i apparently failed at attempting to reformat the existing btrfs partition and use it as / .
2024-02-19 20:58:54 <@humaton:fedora.im> The text mentioning the changes are immediate is just not visible enough for me
2024-02-19 20:59:43 <@humaton:fedora.im> complicatedly missed it on the screen just seen it in the screenshot by adam.
2024-02-19 20:59:46 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Unfortunately BTRFS support in Cockpit Storage is young but they are working on that heavily to stabilize it based on the feedback
2024-02-19 21:00:02 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> jednorozec: that is definitely something we can improve
2024-02-19 21:00:10 <@cmurf:fedora.im> i thought we'd discussed that `/home` and user preservation needs to be an option in guided path? like, the idea is to optionally do more things in guided so that users don't have to resort to custom partitioning and the ensuing trouble
2024-02-19 21:00:40 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> cmurf: still on the plan but unfortunately we wan't able to get to that 
2024-02-19 21:00:42 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> cmurf: Apparently, it's there as "assign mount points"... it's just REALLY not clear that's what it's for
2024-02-19 21:00:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we did. they said they can't do it and we told them we need custom partitioning for that then
2024-02-19 21:00:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i personally am a bit confused about the "guided" terminology. what are we considering to be part of "guided", here?
2024-02-19 21:01:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because blowing away volumes and keeping others and importing users is something that every other installer can do
2024-02-19 21:01:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and we want that for ours too
2024-02-19 21:02:03 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> we never had that in the past, but ok
2024-02-19 21:02:08 <@humaton:fedora.im> I have to run AFK for a while can one of you write the conclusion and close the meeting?
2024-02-19 21:02:29 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> jednorozec: yes, thanks for doing it so far.
2024-02-19 21:02:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we had seriously hoped the new work on Anaconda was going to give us that feature, that's why Workstation WG asked for it early on
2024-02-19 21:02:42 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> yeah, it is a good requirement - I don't argue about that
2024-02-19 21:03:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it was a complaint we got from users in the past
2024-02-19 21:03:16 <@cmurf:fedora.im> ok i think the big issue though is that the cockpit UI change landing when it did and inadvertently was not communicated, is the bigger issue - right? like there's a metric ton or two (weeks) of work on the QA side that was done and then thrown out as a result of the changes - which i guess might also still be continuing
2024-02-19 21:03:34 <@cmurf:fedora.im> so the feature change isn't really stable? is that fair?
2024-02-19 21:03:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> anyway, that's beside the point
2024-02-19 21:03:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> cmurf: eh, not so much work that was done and thrown out as work that is suddenly required that we were not expecting
2024-02-19 21:03:46 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> however, we don't want to create everything on backstage and then come to you with -- everything changed everything is implemented and we would then get this discussion but with much more topics to discuss
2024-02-19 21:04:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> cmurf: That's not everything. It's also about the fact that had this been communicated earlier, we probably would have said "no"
2024-02-19 21:04:19 <@cmurf:fedora.im> ok good distinction
2024-02-19 21:04:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> exactly
2024-02-19 21:04:40 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> cmurf: no more changes to the UX are planned until they are requested - currently we should do only stabilization
2024-02-19 21:04:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Because the custom partitioning flow represents a significant regression that we WILL have problems with
2024-02-19 21:05:33 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: we are still getting to loop, installer team don't have capacity to provide you other solution
2024-02-19 21:05:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> the facts are: we (quality team) did not realize that the cockpit-storage based flow would be appearing for F40 until about two weeks ago. I don't believe FESCo was aware either. the first anaconda-webui package with the change appeared on 2024-02-07. the first compose with the change appeared on 2024-02-10. beta branching took up a lot of time last week, and there is active development still happening on this stuff, which complicates things. beta freeze is 2024-02-27. the realistic 'last day for images' for the current beta target date is 2024-03-05 or 2024-03-06.
2024-02-19 21:06:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: My current proposal is that if we're going to regress anyway, we should just drop custom ENTIRELY and only provide the safe approach
2024-02-19 21:06:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Well, actually, the other option is to ask Workstation WG if this is worth it for F40
2024-02-19 21:06:35 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this new flow requires revisions to the release criteria, wiki test cases, validation matrices and (ideally) openQA automated tests
2024-02-19 21:06:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> they are the _only_ variant shipping this right now, so we can ask if they are okay with such a regression
2024-02-19 21:06:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we have to make those changes, run all the tests, file bugs, and work through the fix/retest cycle
2024-02-19 21:07:03 <@cmurf:fedora.im> OK given the custom path integration with Workstation GIS, I don't think dropping custom is actually an option
2024-02-19 21:07:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: OK, so what is the request from QA, here? Are you asking for a schedule delay?
2024-02-19 21:07:48 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we are already in the process of trying to do this. on the whole, though, this timeframe places the beta and final releases at fairly high schedule risk.
2024-02-19 21:07:56 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> I'm sorry about that adamw you know that it wasn't fault solely on our side. But we honestly forgot about this, on the other hand we had a presentation about his on F39 release party - it wasn't secret from us just not advertised enough
2024-02-19 21:08:22 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Fedora QE is invited to our periodic meetings to cooperate on Web UI, unfortunately not joining ☹️ 
2024-02-19 21:08:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the Workstation WG has their meeting tomorrow, so we should ask them to consider whether they want this for F40 or punt to F41 to give time to deal with the fallout
2024-02-19 21:08:36 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> but I hope that will improve
2024-02-19 21:08:38 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: so there's a couple of things. the key one is the criterion. do we change the criterion to be OK with instant-apply.
2024-02-19 21:09:30 <@adamwill:fedora.im> then there's the whole issue of this cockpit-storage workflow being a major revision to an accepted Change, which was not communicated to fesco or quality, and which is landing late. does fesco want to accept the risk involved in attempting to push forwards with this change and land it in beta?
2024-02-19 21:09:42 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if so, we will do our best to get the tests revised and run and all the bugs filed
2024-02-19 21:09:51 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> How was it in F39? If you had an existing /home, did we support keeping that? And what if /home was a volume on btrfs?
2024-02-19 21:10:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> you could blow away only the root subvolume and reuse the home subvolume
2024-02-19 21:10:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's been that way since Fedora 18
2024-02-19 21:10:33 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Thanks, that's what I thought. So it seems we completely lost this feature.
2024-02-19 21:10:36 <@adamwill:fedora.im> zbyszek: so in gtkui, without touching a custom flow, you can resize existing partitions (though this is apparently less useful than it used to be with windows due to bitlocker), and selectively delete existing devices
2024-02-19 21:10:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> assigning mount points to existing devices requires the use of one of the custom flows
2024-02-19 21:11:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, that is not right
2024-02-19 21:11:24 <@cmurf:fedora.im> well you have the option to delete or keep the old root, it's required to create a new root for installation on btrfs; and it's also an option to reuse or delete old home, and create a new home (or not, in which case it's a directory)
2024-02-19 21:11:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> you can only do that in a custom flow on gtkui. and you should still be able to do it in custom flow on webui+cockpit (though it seems to be difficult with btrfs *right now*, but that's a bug, not a feature)
2024-02-19 21:11:59 <@adamwill:fedora.im> no, that is not right (edit: this was a reply to conan's assertion)
2024-02-19 21:12:18 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yeah, but btrfs is our default fs, and widely popular. So if it doesn't work on btrfs, that's a major regression.
2024-02-19 21:12:42 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> adamw: you are not able to shrink BTRFS on GTK UI, just plain partitions IIRC
2024-02-19 21:12:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i would place that in the bucket of "reasons why attempting to land this now causes schedule risk"
2024-02-19 21:13:03 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: yeah, I think that's right.
2024-02-19 21:13:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I never got around to figuring out why we have that restriction
2024-02-19 21:13:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> since btrfs allows online shrink
2024-02-19 21:13:29 <@adamwill:fedora.im> it seems irrelevant, this is complicated enough already
2024-02-19 21:13:57 <@cmurf:fedora.im> ummm, ok so the next obvious proposal is keeping GTK UI for F40 and figuring out the answer to the thorny questions later (which I do not like, and am not yet advocating, I just want to explore the consequences of that)
2024-02-19 21:14:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the GTK UI is still tested in F40 since it's part of the flow for Fedora KDE
2024-02-19 21:14:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the main consequence is untangling the changes to the live session that was done for Workstation
2024-02-19 21:14:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> gtkui is used for everything except workstation live.
2024-02-19 21:14:50 <@cmurf:fedora.im> like it seems to me we're a bit stuck how far we can go with webui without committing to both instant-apply and cockpit ui late landing
2024-02-19 21:14:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> some of those involve non-upstream patches
2024-02-19 21:15:09 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> zbyszek: that is unfortune outcome of diversion of default partitioning between RHEL and Fedora - hard to find resources for BTRFS development in general
2024-02-19 21:15:44 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> RH being stubborn ;(
2024-02-19 21:16:10 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> not saying it's not true
2024-02-19 21:16:15 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> but still it's the outcome
2024-02-19 21:17:24 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> anyway - I wonder what would be the expectation from deferring this to F41? Do you expect that installer team will come with a new partitioning tool?
2024-02-19 21:17:40 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> or on F41 there will be just enough time?
2024-02-19 21:17:44 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> or what is expected here
2024-02-19 21:17:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so i think fesco should first decide if it actually wants to stand in the way of webui+cockpit *in principle*. do you want to try and say that an installer without feature X, Y or Z is unacceptable for fedora and will not be accepted?
2024-02-19 21:18:09 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (after thinking through the consequences of that)
2024-02-19 21:18:13 <@cmurf:fedora.im> yep, difficult question but needs an answer
2024-02-19 21:18:16 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> I'm asking mainly because of the blocker bug which is honestly still absurd to me (yeah I know adamw you already explained it to me 😄 )
2024-02-19 21:18:23 <@adamwill:fedora.im> after that, we could consider the question of whether landing it *right now for f40* is the right thing to do
2024-02-19 21:18:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I personally don't like a Web UI for a desktop application, but that ship sailed for a lot of things already :(
2024-02-19 21:19:15 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> if FESCO will reject Cockpit + installer than we probably have an issue pretty hard to be resolved - also you are killing a lot of work from the Cockpit team -- just FYI
2024-02-19 21:19:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't have a problem with Cockpit itself in principle, but I do have a problem with them asserting their partitioning model is okay
2024-02-19 21:19:53 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Something I've been thinking about that I haven't had time to propose was this: What if we planned for a 12-month cycle once every three years for the release that follows the fork for CentOS Stream/RHEL. It would allow us to have a scheduled cycle for landing stuff we know will take more bake time than most releases. And I think "right after the fork for RHEL" seems like a good time...
2024-02-19 21:20:40 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> Put another way what userbase is waiting for this functionality and do they care about destructive turn based storage setup
2024-02-19 21:20:46 <@cmurf:fedora.im> i'm not sure what it would take for me to get on board with instant-apply partitioning: the user must wet ink sign a release form and scan it in?
2024-02-19 21:20:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> or... we could just make changes that require more time to bake to be pushed to future releases
2024-02-19 21:21:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> what makes lengthening the release cycle for everyone more attractive than just pushing out changes to future releases?
2024-02-19 21:21:59 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Eh, I have answers but this discussion is already complicated. Let's revisit this later
2024-02-19 21:22:10 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yeah, I don't think we need 12-months cycles. Futures are developed asynchronously anyway.
2024-02-19 21:22:45 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> still can't help myself that Immediate action is a personal preference
2024-02-19 21:22:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> me personally, I don't feel good about this
2024-02-19 21:23:05 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> exactly
2024-02-19 21:23:11 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: So is pulling the trigger on a shotgun, but we still put safeties on them...
2024-02-19 21:24:25 <@cmurf:fedora.im> following that metaphor is there some simple additional developer option, like a safety switch, that can get us on board with instant-apply?
2024-02-19 21:25:05 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> cmurf: I think this is a good analogy. Shotguns are just bad, and safeties and other duck tape appendages don't help enough.
2024-02-19 21:25:20 <@cmurf:fedora.im> like what else can be done with the UI or the messaging to convey the non-reversibility aspect of all the choices past that threshold?
2024-02-19 21:25:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I would like to put forth another question: why _must_ it work this way?
2024-02-19 21:26:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the UI and the backend udisks are already separate components, presenting things and holding back actions until we actually _do_ something is a well-known pattern
2024-02-19 21:27:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> this is even more true with web UIs, which operate client side while the actual actions happen elsewhere "server side"
2024-02-19 21:27:16 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: i don't think it's "it must be this way" so much as "who is going to pay to rewrite udisks2"?
2024-02-19 21:27:22 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: can't answer that - not an expert. However, it was said clearly from the team that this is not possible
2024-02-19 21:27:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm asking the question: why does it involve rewriting udisks
2024-02-19 21:27:42 <@cmurf:fedora.im> I don't know the development cost of the planned-layout-apply-later UIUX, like that whole logging aspect I look at is extremely detailed so there's a lot of code playing all those ordered (delayed) executions and tying them to tests and error pathways and also logging all of it
2024-02-19 21:27:49 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (and then, i guess, revise cockpit-storage around the change. and probably gnome-disks.)
2024-02-19 21:27:53 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: udisks2 doesn't have to be rewritten, but a modeling UI can happen atop it and udisks2 used to apply the changes when readty
2024-02-19 21:27:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we can just as easily just not send commands to udisks
2024-02-19 21:28:06 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> adamw: to answer your question: webui and cockpit are not the issue. But the huge regression in functionality is an issue. I think we're being put in front of a choice, either this or that, but maybe those are not the only possible answers. In particular, we had an essentially working installer in the past. After a few months of work, we have something that looks nice, but doesn't seem to cut it functionality-wise. So maybe we need to go back to what we had and try a different direction.
2024-02-19 21:28:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, okay, but ultimately, who's gonna do that
2024-02-19 21:28:15 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> But I understand that we have limited resources.
2024-02-19 21:28:42 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> creating a storage planning is super hard to achieve, you need to model what will happen without it actually happened 
2024-02-19 21:28:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'm also aware that the Anaconda team is scrambling with internal pressures around the (in my opinion, premature) dropping of X11
2024-02-19 21:28:58 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> BTW, I just tried "mount point assignment" in a VM, and it destroyed my existing data. :(
2024-02-19 21:30:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> at this point, I don't know what we should do
2024-02-19 21:30:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we seem to be pushed into bad choices all around
2024-02-19 21:30:12 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: that is just one of the things we are dealing with ... ☹️
2024-02-19 21:30:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and I really don't feel good about any of our choices that we're being told to consider
2024-02-19 21:31:13 <@adamwill:fedora.im> so, let me play devil's advocate
2024-02-19 21:31:26 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if fesco were to frankly duck the Big Question and instead say "this is just too late, it's deferred to F41 because it's late"
2024-02-19 21:31:40 <@cmurf:fedora.im> i think proscribing instant-apply has its own consequences which is a bunch of developers working on this might write off the whole enchilada - like this is not the time for product development, unless folks really have developers lined up waiting to work on this
2024-02-19 21:31:43 <@cmurf:fedora.im> just the reality
2024-02-19 21:31:44 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and hope that Stuff Happens over the next fourish months to make the answer to the Big Question clearer
2024-02-19 21:31:47 <@adamwill:fedora.im> how mad would everyone be
2024-02-19 21:32:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I would be fine with it
2024-02-19 21:32:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> at least then we can have a lower-pressure conversation with the Cockpit and Anaconda folks
2024-02-19 21:32:27 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (i am not pushing this outcome, just floating it as a possibility)
2024-02-19 21:32:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I feel like we're being boxed into bad choices now because there's Some Need(tm) for it in F40
2024-02-19 21:35:29 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> adamw: I won't be mad (maybe a while after the decison) but I would need to consider next steps where any of those are great

where I'm forced to do that without still getting feedback to almost anything
2024-02-19 21:36:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: If we reject this, what would it take to revert to the same installer as the other deliverables?
2024-02-19 21:36:16 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> and sorry but Fedora QE nor FESCO is target group of standard Fedora user
2024-02-19 21:36:18 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Would it not simplify the maintenance on your team?
2024-02-19 21:36:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm sorry you're not getting feedback, what do we need to do to get more feedback for you.
2024-02-19 21:36:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> This, however, is wrong. We're all Fedora users of varying levels of complexity.
2024-02-19 21:37:10 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> If you reject it than most probably Workstation SIG will reject web UI so we are again without release of web UI
2024-02-19 21:37:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: FESCo members aren't, no. But FESCo IS responsible for representing our target users. Which (unless it has changed) is meant to be developers, no?
2024-02-19 21:37:31 <@adamwill:fedora.im> oh, yeah, i was kinda assuming the choice would be 'defer the whole webui feature'
2024-02-19 21:37:39 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> get it release 😄 😄
2024-02-19 21:37:47 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> get it released 😄 😄
2024-02-19 21:37:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> (Specifically for Workstation)
2024-02-19 21:38:22 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> creatives, developers, technical users, etc.
2024-02-19 21:38:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we are broader than developers, but developers may be one of the largest targets we have
2024-02-19 21:39:01 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> so basically this is partially issue raised by postponing the web UI on Fedora 39 because - we still implementing blidly
2024-02-19 21:39:36 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> so instead of half a year blind implementation it would be a year of blind implementation without feedback
2024-02-19 21:39:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> fwiw, I would like for us to have some kind of deliverable with the webui installer even if it's nonblocking if that would help make it "less blind"
2024-02-19 21:40:04 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> plus you are rejecting our only feasible option for partitioning tool which is even more interesting issue to resolve
2024-02-19 21:40:13 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> bystander question: does "we need features X, Y, Z and instant-apply is not what we want" not count as feedback?
2024-02-19 21:40:31 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> Yeah why can't there be a "try it out" build with the web UI alongside the one everyone knows. Get feedback that eay
2024-02-19 21:40:48 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Counter-proposal to a deliverable: We organize a test-day and for this purpose, we use a test ISO. It doesn't have to an official build.
2024-02-19 21:40:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and we should actively promote it as a preview build
2024-02-19 21:40:53 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we do have the osbuild image we could keep webui on
2024-02-19 21:40:58 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> I think it does
2024-02-19 21:41:02 <@adamwill:fedora.im> but i think the g-i-s integration maybe makes it harder
2024-02-19 21:41:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the Ubuntu folks did this with their installer work
2024-02-19 21:41:10 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: as I said, I think this is personal preference issue and FESCO are people who re involved in Linux and Fedora for years
2024-02-19 21:41:11 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> wasn't this planned to happen half a year ago?
2024-02-19 21:41:12 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm not sure we can easily ship one image without the g-i-s customizations and one with
2024-02-19 21:41:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and openSUSE is doing it now with Agama too
2024-02-19 21:41:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think it's absolutely worth it for us to introduce an artifact that always has it so people can try it and we can get more feedback
2024-02-19 21:41:40 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> personal preferences are feedback too. you should not discard that just because you don't like it ;)
2024-02-19 21:41:41 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: there were a few of these built, but i'm not sure how many people actually tried them.
2024-02-19 21:41:56 <@cmurf:fedora.im> Exactly why change proposals need to have all of such details relevant to the change in them. I didn't know about the cockpit UI addition until today.
2024-02-19 21:42:08 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> dcantrell: I wanted to do that on Fedora 39 but it was rejected that having two deliverables is hard to test -- I totally agree with that 
2024-02-19 21:42:13 <@cmurf:fedora.im> A huge part of the change proposal is to avoid parties getting burned.
2024-02-19 21:42:48 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> as I'm still repeating Cockpit Storage is not forcing you to use it
2024-02-19 21:42:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: if one of the deliverables is not release blocking, testing isn't an issue at all. it only becomes an issue of how difficult it is on development/releng side.
2024-02-19 21:42:58 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> It sounds like you have earned the right to say "I told you so"
2024-02-19 21:43:29 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Maybe we don't ship an installer for F40 at all! Only upgrades are supported! (I'm getting tired)
2024-02-19 21:43:44 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> Yes we need to wrap this up
2024-02-19 21:44:30 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Can we at least vote on one simple question? "Is the current situation something we are willing to ship to end-users?"
2024-02-19 21:44:32 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: that is in correlation with presentation about OpenSuse installer, the best installer for users is the one who doesn't exists. I so much agree with that!
2024-02-19 21:44:48 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: that is in correlation with presentation about OpenSuse installer, the best installer for users is the one which doesn't exists. I so much agree with that!
2024-02-19 21:44:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> If the answer is "no", let's approve the blocker and work towards figuring out how to unblock it over the next week.
2024-02-19 21:44:50 <@adamwill:fedora.im> there is no good partitioning UI.
2024-02-19 21:45:24 <@adamwill:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: i don't know that this makes much sense. the blocker is on the lack of a plan-then-apply mechanism. there is zero realistic prospect one of those is going to show up for beta.
2024-02-19 21:45:41 <@cmurf:fedora.im> I'm willing to ship it with caveats even though I reallllly don't like it. In my opinion the limit is asking for a safety switch, not a redesign.
2024-02-19 21:45:56 <@adamwill:fedora.im> we are not going to solve that problem in a week. we are either shipping f40 without plan-then-apply or we are shipping it without cockpit-storage.
2024-02-19 21:46:07 <@adamwill:fedora.im> (for workstation live, obviously)
2024-02-19 21:46:13 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: Yes, but the clearing of that blocker could be "only ship guided installation" or "revert to the old approach"
2024-02-19 21:46:23 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Or some other option we haven't figured out because we're all tired.
2024-02-19 21:46:33 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I think we should postpone this change for F41.
2024-02-19 21:46:33 <@adamwill:fedora.im> well, okay, if you want to try that, i guess.
2024-02-19 21:46:55 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> we can't ship web UI without Workstation SIG approval
2024-02-19 21:47:20 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: sorry, I'm tired too, but how does "guided installation" corresponds to one of the three choices in the installer right now?
2024-02-19 21:47:41 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> zbyszek: It's basically those three choices, but the "Modify storage" button above is removed.
2024-02-19 21:48:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> this would effectively only allow installs to systems with sufficient free space, or by wiping entire disks.
2024-02-19 21:48:12 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Yes
2024-02-19 21:48:15 <@adamwill:fedora.im> okay.
2024-02-19 21:48:34 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Hmm, that's confusing. So I don't think this is really "guided". I tried it, and "mount point assignment" is very bare-bones.
2024-02-19 21:48:58 <@adamwill:fedora.im> yes, to be clear, it is not at all (yet) a guided mode as envisaged in the Change, with the advanced capabilities implied ther.
2024-02-19 21:49:22 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> we would like to add options based on feedback --- ups ...
2024-02-19 21:49:46 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> How about for partition resizing we show Tetris and each block is a logical block on the volume and...well, you know
2024-02-19 21:49:48 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> we would like to add options based on feedback --- ups no feedback yet...

sorry it's late and I had hard day
2024-02-19 21:50:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: I know, and I really do sympathize. You're in a tough position here no matter how this discussion goes. It's not unnoticed and I don't think anyone here is happy about it.
2024-02-19 21:51:45 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We know you're doing your best with minimal resources.
2024-02-19 21:52:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: If we said "defer the new UI to F41 and we'll schedule three Test Days in the next three months", would that be acceptable?
2024-02-19 21:53:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes, jkonecny I do appreciate everything you and your team are doing
2024-02-19 21:53:38 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: If we said "defer the new UI to F41 and we'll schedule three Test Days in the next five months", would that be acceptable?
2024-02-19 21:54:11 <@adamwill:fedora.im> i'm also honestly wondering if we might try using server as a testbed instead of workstation, especially if it's going to be a non-blocking image. that avoids a lot of the complexity of the g-i-s integration stuff. and maybe btrfs to a degree (since server defaults to xfs).
2024-02-19 21:54:36 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: That's a clever idea
2024-02-19 21:54:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think a live and an install image are both valid cases
2024-02-19 21:55:04 <@adamwill:fedora.im> and after all, if we're considering our Significant Downstream here (ahem), they don't ship a GNOME live install image, AFAIK.
2024-02-19 21:55:11 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Absolutely, but maybe start with the "easier" one?
2024-02-19 21:55:43 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> adamw: we can't adopt Server, we didn't focused on the required feature work there
2024-02-19 21:55:53 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> our focus was solely on this deployment
2024-02-19 21:56:18 <@cmurf:fedora.im> my vague recollection is Server folks required some of the RAID stuff to be wired up in the custom partitioning?
2024-02-19 21:56:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and other spins can't use it because there is no equivalent to g-i-s for them
2024-02-19 21:56:54 <@adamwill:fedora.im> jkonecny: ah, okay.
2024-02-19 21:57:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> But still: would a delay to F41 be okay as long as we preemptively schedule multiple Test Days (and announce them widely)?
2024-02-19 21:58:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> That should help get the real feedback you neeed
2024-02-19 21:58:06 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: GIS shouldn't be the requirement
2024-02-19 21:58:07 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> That should help get the real feedback you need
2024-02-19 21:58:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> without g-i-s we have no way to set locale with the new installer
2024-02-19 21:58:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> those features were not reimplement, last I checked
2024-02-19 21:58:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> *reimplemented
2024-02-19 21:58:41 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Let's avoid the minutiae for this decision, please?
2024-02-19 21:59:13 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> We have welcome screen with language selection, however, missing keyboard configuration which implemented for Gnome only so far
2024-02-19 22:00:26 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> OK, let's do a vote.
Proposal:  Changes/AnacondaWebUIforFedoraWorkstation is postponed to F41. 

2024-02-19 22:01:15 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Addendum: FESCo and QA will help arrange mass-testing early in the F41 cycle
2024-02-19 22:01:38 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Ack, +1 with the addendum, FTR.
2024-02-19 22:01:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Addendum: mass-testing should be scheduled shortly after F40 GA
2024-02-19 22:01:51 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> if you still keep around the bug with Instant apply as blocker you might not need to do testing for F41
2024-02-19 22:01:52 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> +1 including addendum
2024-02-19 22:01:57 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> we won't be able to deliver it
2024-02-19 22:02:03 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> most probably
2024-02-19 22:02:59 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: Understood, but we'll have time to figure out what is an acceptable compromise.
2024-02-19 22:03:45 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> * don't know what to say or expect here 😄
2024-02-19 22:03:55 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> jkonecny: I don't think this is a blocker for testing. In fact, it might be good to test with the current model, incl. insta-apply. Maybe users will be happy, and then we (FESCo) will reconsider our stance. Or maybe users will not be happy, and then you (the webui developers) will have to reconsider. 
2024-02-19 22:04:52 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if this change is deferred i'll remove blocker status from the bug, as it really doesn't make sense to track it as a 'blocker' for months at a time
2024-02-19 22:05:04 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> zbyszek: what do you think by that? How to test it, what would be the deliverable?
2024-02-19 22:05:19 <@adamwill:fedora.im> if that is going to happen I would expect *somebody* to take charge of answering the question "if not this, then what?" because it doesn't feel like my job
2024-02-19 22:05:31 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: I'll own that
2024-02-19 22:05:55 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I would ask users to install the image on spare laptops, or try to upgrade a VM they have, etc. Just normal installation tasks.
2024-02-19 22:06:06 <@cmurf:fedora.im> well an early step would be to refresh the change proposal to reflect the actual reality of the product
2024-02-19 22:06:16 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> Is everyone chatting in back channels?
2024-02-19 22:06:16 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> +1
2024-02-19 22:06:29 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> zbyszek: still not sure what would be the deliverable?
2024-02-19 22:07:04 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We are over two and a half hours on this meeting. FESCo members, please vote on zbyszek 's proposal
2024-02-19 22:07:22 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> We're at +3, 0, 0. 
2024-02-19 22:07:36 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> I did but I don't know if it went thru. +1
2024-02-19 22:07:45 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> I had to go to 4G
2024-02-19 22:08:02 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yes, it did already.
2024-02-19 22:08:18 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> Ok, cool
2024-02-19 22:08:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 with addendums
2024-02-19 22:08:32 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: I understand that your addendum is the same as Stephen Gallagher 's?
2024-02-19 22:08:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it is not
2024-02-19 22:08:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I added a timing condition
2024-02-19 22:08:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm essentially saying that we need to do it right away vs just early
2024-02-19 22:09:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the F41 dev cycle starts in August, I want us to start in May
2024-02-19 22:09:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I left it vague in the interest of letting the installer folks tell us when, but I don't feel strongly
2024-02-19 22:10:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: The F41 dev cycle started at the fork...
2024-02-19 22:10:15 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I guess it doesn't matter. "Shortly after F40 GA" and "Early in the F41 cycle" are the same.
2024-02-19 22:10:19 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> hard to say but my expectation would be no for F41... but I need to revisit the workbench to find out
2024-02-19 22:10:41 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: "no" to what?
2024-02-19 22:10:46 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> web UI
2024-02-19 22:10:49 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> given to conditions
2024-02-19 22:11:00 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> and RHEL work we are expected to get
2024-02-19 22:11:07 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: We're not putting conditions on it until we get the initial round of user feedback
2024-02-19 22:11:17 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> That's what I'm trying to say with the mandatory early test days
2024-02-19 22:11:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> right, we're not even forcing the cockpit folks to change the storage interaction model in this proposal
2024-02-19 22:11:54 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> OK, do we have another FESCo member to finish the vote? Or are we below qorum?
2024-02-19 22:11:58 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> OK, do we have another FESCo member to finish the vote? Or are we below quorum?
2024-02-19 22:12:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think we're below quorum with jednorozec gone
2024-02-19 22:13:11 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> Come on
2024-02-19 22:13:13 <@humaton:fedora.im> I am here
2024-02-19 22:13:18 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> This meeting needs to end
2024-02-19 22:13:30 <@humaton:fedora.im> give me minute I will get bak at computer
2024-02-19 22:14:30 <@jkonecny:fedora.im> I'm going off - no need for me. I need some time to get energy for tomorrow work what is expecting me
2024-02-19 22:14:58 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> jkonecny: thank you for being here.
2024-02-19 22:15:05 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> jkonecny: Thank you for coming. We really do appreciate all you do
2024-02-19 22:16:02 <@humaton:fedora.im> Ok with the addenum going for f41, +1
2024-02-19 22:16:13 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Phew.
2024-02-19 22:16:52 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !agreed Changes/AnacondaWebUIforFedoraWorkstation is postponed to F41.  FESCo and QA will help arrange mass-testing early in the F41 cycle, shortly after F40 GA. (+5, 0, 0)
2024-02-19 22:17:36 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !topic Next week's chair
2024-02-19 22:17:50 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Vlntrs?
2024-02-19 22:18:18 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> One...
2024-02-19 22:18:24 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Two...
2024-02-19 22:18:29 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Three...
2024-02-19 22:18:37 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> OK, I'll do it. I'll try not to be late.
2024-02-19 22:18:39 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !action zbyszek will chair next meeting
2024-02-19 22:18:48 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !topic Open Floor
2024-02-19 22:18:56 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I hope we can skip this.
2024-02-19 22:19:03 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I'll close in 30 s.
2024-02-19 22:19:12 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> OK, I'm going back to my PTO
2024-02-19 22:19:27 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: thanks for coming.
2024-02-19 22:19:33 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !endmeeting