15:00:59 <jwb> #startmeeting 15:00:59 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 22 15:00:59 2014 UTC. The chair is jwb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:59 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00:59 <jwb> #meetingname workstation 15:00:59 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation' 15:00:59 <jwb> #meetingtopic Workstation WG meeting 15:00:59 <jwb> #topic init 15:00:59 <jwb> #chair juhp cwickert otaylor mclasen cschalle ryanlerch jwb kalev 15:00:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: cschalle cwickert juhp jwb kalev mclasen otaylor ryanlerch 15:01:05 <jwb> hi all. who's around? 15:01:25 <otaylor> I'm here 15:01:29 * cwickert is here 15:01:35 <juhp_> hi 15:01:35 <drago01> . 15:01:51 * sgallagh is around 15:01:52 * kalev appears in a puff of magic. 15:01:59 <jwb> i like magic 15:02:25 <jwb> ryanlerch, mclasen_ cschalle ? 15:03:21 <sgallagh> mclasen_ had another appointment and won't be around for the meeting 15:03:37 <mclasen_> currently here, but running out in 15 15:03:44 * stickster comes in, sorry for lateness 15:04:05 <jwb> hm 15:04:15 <jwb> kalev, mind if we start with netinstall then? 15:04:20 <kalev> sure 15:04:22 <jwb> ok 15:04:29 <jwb> #topic Netinstall 15:04:35 <jwb> kalev, take it away! 15:04:51 <kalev> so the story here is that release engineering had a plan how to handle netinstall in F21 15:04:56 <cschalle> i am here 15:05:24 * ryanlerch is here too 15:05:31 <kalev> the plan was to create a separate repo for each of the products, and have each product's netinstalls read comps and packages from that repo 15:05:48 <kalev> this would have ensured that in each netinstall, only the relevant products things show up in Anaconda 15:05:56 <kalev> however, this plan backfired 15:06:11 <kalev> we do have a separate repo for each product and the installer read comps from there 15:06:47 <kalev> but in addition to that, the installer also uses the updates and updates-testing repos, which have all the other stuff too 15:06:53 <ryanlerch> kalev, so three seperate boot.iso s? 15:07:01 <kalev> so we get weird stuff like Mate apps being offered for workstation 15:07:07 <kalev> ryanlerch: that was the original plan, yes 15:07:30 <juhp_> ryanlerch, technically there already were for alpha 15:07:40 <kalev> sgallagh opened a ticket with fesco asking what to do now 15:07:43 * kalev finds the link. 15:08:07 <ryanlerch> kalev, the mate apps offered? like in the software selection screen in anaconda?> 15:08:08 <mclasen_> kalev: I don't find extra apps that concerning, tbh 15:08:22 <mclasen_> after all, we're also offering all the worlds apps in gnome-software 15:08:29 <mclasen_> (or we should be, at least) 15:08:29 <otaylor> You would only see that if you went to the detailed software selection? 15:08:51 <kalev> give me two minutes, I'll boot up the netinstall and take a screenshot how it currently looks 15:09:02 <stickster> #link FESCo ticket on netinstall: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1358 15:09:04 <jwb> and with netinstall, it's somewhat a bit unclear if it's supposed to be more flexible in choices or not 15:09:14 <jwb> unlike the live image which is the main deliverable 15:09:22 <kalev> gah, I seem to have deleted the netinstall iso, can't take the screenshot now 15:09:56 <otaylor> I'd certainly suggest that for workstation, we *don't* want netinstall to be more flexible at a UI level - we just want it to be a non-live-image based way to get to the same end result 15:10:08 <juhp_> are the Beta netinstall images actually different? 15:10:32 <otaylor> On the other hand, if you are writing a kickstart file to install fedora workstation, you should have access to any application in Fedora 15:10:36 <mclasen_> I think what we should strive for is that an install that ends up calling itself 'workstation' is more or less identical what you get to a non-netinstall, plus possible extra apps 15:11:10 <juhp_> mclasen_, sounds okay yes 15:11:16 <ryanlerch> the live image doesnt show the software selection option in anaconda, right? 15:11:23 <mclasen_> no, they don't 15:12:01 <ryanlerch> but it's not possible to not show it in the netinstall one? 15:12:33 <kalev> not currently, at least 15:12:45 <otaylor> ryanlerch: I think what would be good is if the user at least doesn't have to visit that branch in the tree 15:12:50 <kalev> but if we wanted to have that, I'm sure we could work with anaconda people to achieve that 15:13:31 <juhp_> otaylor, true it could be an advanced option 15:13:37 <kalev> ok, netinstall downloaded, screenshots coming up in a sec 15:14:03 <stickster> It sounds like there might be a way to implant a kickstart file on the separate ISOs that makes the appropriate software/sources selections, skipping those steps in Anaconda? 15:14:21 <juhp_> I don't see much point really in shipping the netinstall image if we're going to cripple it 15:14:28 <otaylor> If we could ship a workstation netinstall image that was set up so the default software set was what you get from the live image and the software selection branch was in the "happy" state, it doesn't seem that important what you find under software selection - it's a bit of a deceptive path for the user to think they need to go there - but we want to push the live image anyways 15:14:32 <stickster> It wouldn't prevent the user from visiting those screens, AIUI, juhp_ 15:14:56 <stickster> It would pre-select choices so that you'd get something equivalent to Live install 15:15:14 <juhp_> okay 15:15:19 <jwb> that doesn't sound bad to me, but it sounds like something that won't happen by Beta 15:15:25 <ryanlerch> juhp, i don't see it as crippling it, its more that the user installs the extra software in (IMHO) a better interface for doing so -- the Software app 15:15:39 <sgallagh> And if it doesn't happen by Beta, should we dare change it for Final? 15:16:00 <stickster> jwb: It would be tough to change for Beta, and thus scary for Final (to answer sgallagh) 15:16:10 <otaylor> Looking at the ticket - option 3. (the current thing) seems poor to me - there is an inconsistent set of software available 15:16:16 <kalev> ok, so this is how netinstall currently looks like: 15:16:19 <kalev> https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/netinstall1.png 15:16:20 <kalev> https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/netinstall2.png 15:16:21 <kalev> https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/netinstall3.png 15:16:24 <jwb> this kind of stuff is why i was concerned about saying no working netinstall iso for Alpha was ok 15:16:27 <sgallagh> otaylor: Option 3? 15:16:28 <stickster> jwb: sgallagh: Rel-eng must have some sort of per-product boot.iso creation already, but this implantation would be a separate step 15:16:35 <jwb> beceause now is not the time to be doing these kinds of changes 15:16:36 <kalev> all the netinstalls looks the same, no difference between server of workstation, atm 15:16:47 <juhp_> kalev, right also my impression 15:16:49 <stickster> (but honestly, it's not a terribly sophisticated change, and easy to test without ruining our nightly composes) 15:16:54 <otaylor> sgallagh: the ticket that stickster linked to has 3 numbered options (https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/netinstall2.png) 15:17:09 <ryanlerch> kalev, it still chooses Server as the default packageset, even on the workstation boot.iso? 15:17:15 <kalev> tes 15:17:17 <kalev> yes 15:17:46 <juhp_> honestly I would be perfectly happy with a unified netinstall for the products 15:17:51 <jwb> we can request to not ship the workstation iso in that case 15:18:06 <kalev> jwb: I think so too, this is the option that makes most sense right now 15:18:17 <otaylor> Wait, why does the selection screen have Fedora Workstation and GNOME Desktop as separate optionss 15:18:21 <sgallagh> I must have missed the link... 15:18:31 <ryanlerch> i actaully hit this this morning, installing a new laptop from a boot.iso -- server was selected and chosen by default -- i didnt even have to "confirm" the change 15:18:33 <kalev> I mean, if we were to ship a Workstation netinstall, people expect it to at least default to Workstation 15:18:44 * stickster sees that (3) is basically what he was talking about -- and sgallagh wisely pointed out an ugly cost to that approach 15:18:44 <otaylor> sgallagh: sorry https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1358 15:18:47 <juhp_> otaylor, I mentioned that on the mailing list quite a while back :) 15:18:49 <mclasen_> otaylor: I guess it is just a dump of whats in comps ? 15:18:49 <ryanlerch> before i realised, id started the install, and had to go back and start again 15:18:59 <kalev> but if all the netinstalls are exactly the same and default to server, we shouldn't promote one of them as workstation 15:19:52 <jwb> #link https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1358 15:20:05 <ryanlerch> yeah, a unified boot.iso wouldnt really be part of any of the three products... 15:20:31 <stickster> sgallagh: Hm, maybe my suggestion is not quite (3). If one was to provide a kickstart with just %packages selected, it wouldn't preclude use of updates I think. 15:20:47 <stickster> sgallagh: I'm theorizing on whether this would work, though -- would need anaconda input either way 15:20:53 <jwb> so in the ticket i suggested option (1) with server as the default because it seemed to be the most likely usecase of a netinstall 15:20:56 <stickster> ryanlerch++ 15:21:05 <jwb> and because workstation really wants to promote the live image 15:21:07 * mclasen_ has to bow out, sadly 15:21:14 <jwb> mclasen_, np. thanks for coming 15:21:14 <stickster> mclasen_: o/ 15:21:35 <sgallagh> stickster: one of the proposals I made was to ask Anaconda to read a file on the image containing the environment group to default to 15:21:53 <sgallagh> We could easily swap the products around that way (and make like easier on Spins too) 15:22:05 <stickster> sgallagh: I don't think an Anaconda change would be great at this point... but a kickstart wouldn't require any change to the code ;-) 15:22:26 <kalev> sgallagh: fwiw, I think it's also the cleanest approach and much nicer than the current way where we have to ship a full tree for each product on the mirrors 15:22:48 <ryanlerch> what would the use case be for someone downloading and using the Workstation netinstall over the full live image? 15:23:04 * jwb shrugs 15:23:34 <kalev> not netinstall per se, but it's cousin, the PXE install can be very useful in corporate environments 15:23:56 * jsmith does lots of PXE installations :-) 15:24:11 * stickster not so much, but I use netinstall so I don't have to pull e.g. whole DVD. 15:24:27 <drago01> stickster: unless you have a local mirror the effect is the same 15:24:27 <stickster> Metered internet? 15:24:35 <jwb> so instead of brainstorming for all possible solutions here, can we focus on 1) what does the WG want out of a workstation netinstall.iso and 2) if we can't get 1 do we ask them to not ship one at all? 15:24:49 <drago01> stickster: net install == download from the net ... so that doesn't help 15:25:31 <jwb> stickster, drago01 is pointing out there is no DVD any longer, so the live image size is the same download size as a net install. not 4GB 15:25:35 <stickster> drago01: Yeah, I'm still thinking of unified DVD> 15:25:42 <jwb> but all of this is irrelevant at the moment 15:25:56 <jwb> so, what does the WG want for a workstation netinstall iso? 15:25:58 <juhp_> drago01, you can typically select a smaller package set in netinstall than Live 15:26:09 <otaylor> jwb: I'd say 1) anything labelled as a workstation netinstall.iso needs to install the workstation software by default if the user doesn't take any specific action 15:26:14 <cschalle> 1) personally I think as long as we can get it to default to WS that is fine for a first attempt (and then we do a proper fix for F22). 2) Yeah, then there might as well just be a generic netinstall or whatever we want to call it 15:26:35 <stickster> me was typing, but (1) what cschalle just said 15:27:01 <otaylor> 2) if we can't get a workstation iso that is set up by that way by default, then please dont' call it the workstation netinstall.iso 15:27:11 <kalev> proposal: Workstation is OK with netinstall defaulting to Server, but asks FESCo to only ship a single netinstall and remove the Workstation specific netinstall and install tree from F21. 15:27:11 <jwb> that all seems to be the general agreement. does anyone disagree? 15:27:28 <jwb> kalev, +1 15:27:33 <otaylor> jwb: Which is the general agreement? 15:27:40 <juhp_> kalev, +1 15:28:37 <jwb> otaylor, what you and cschalle said, but i believe kalev's proposal is the only feasible solution in time for beta 15:29:34 <ryanlerch> jwb, so on the workstation download page on the website, we will still just have links to the live image (both arches) -- no link to the netinstall iso 15:29:51 <otaylor> kalev: +1 (with the caveat that I'd not want that netinstall.iso described in any way on the "Get Fedora Workstation" web pages) 15:30:06 <jwb> ryanlerch, yes 15:30:18 <cschalle> ok, this setup sounds ok for me 15:30:36 <kalev> otaylor: yes, my sentiment exactly -- if we ask to have the workstation netinstall removed, we can make sure web pages don't link workstation netinstall 15:30:53 <stickster> This makes sense to me -- the option will still be there for a consumer to get a netinstall, but we're not going to promote it 15:31:04 <jwb> cwickert, ? 15:31:18 <stickster> i.e. they can download existing netinstall e.g. Server, choose the Workstation product from the environment list in Anaconda. 15:31:20 <juhp_> I hope we could have a WS netinstall iso for F22 though 15:31:22 <ryanlerch> kalev, otaylor -- the plan on the website for workstation was to just have the two live images as options (64 bit being the default) 15:31:56 <jwb> #agreed Workstation is OK with netinstall defaulting to 15:31:56 <jwb> Server, but asks FESCo to only ship a single netinstall and 15:31:56 <cwickert> sorry, busy 15:31:59 <jwb> remove the Workstation specific netinstall and install tree from 15:32:02 <jwb> F21. 15:32:03 <jwb> ugh, that was terrible formatting 15:32:05 <jwb> #undo 15:32:05 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by jwb at 15:31:56 : Workstation is OK with netinstall defaulting to 15:32:08 <stickster> heh 15:32:33 <jwb> #agreed Workstation is OK with netinstall defaulting to Server, but asks FESCo to only ship a single netinstall and remove the Workstation specific netinstall and install tree from F21. 15:32:48 <jwb> ok. kalev do you want to follow up with FESCo then? 15:32:59 <kalev> sure, will do 15:33:01 <jwb> thanks 15:33:07 <jwb> #action kalev to follow up with FESCo 15:33:13 <jwb> ok, let's get to branding 15:33:19 <jwb> #topic Branding work 15:33:36 <jwb> lots of discussion on brand and logos on the list, plus the websites work 15:33:41 <jwb> ryanlerch, want to cover the state of things? 15:36:14 * jwb hopes ryanlerch is typing furiously 15:36:48 <stickster> multitasking is hard :-D 15:37:11 <cschalle> stickster, run over and hit ryanlerch with a stick to get him to type faster :) 15:37:19 <ryanlerch> ow 15:38:15 <sgallagh> The beatings will continue until morale improves. 15:38:56 * stickster notes ryanlerch is typing furiously 15:39:00 <ryanlerch> we have summarized the points of view of the different voices on the thread, and are going to reach out to them, and the GNOME design team to try find a way to try to come up with a plan to both make Fedora more visible on the workstation, but keeping the style and design goals of GNOME in mind. 15:39:37 <jwb> ok. in time for F21? 15:39:39 <stickster> I saw mattdm yesterday while I'm up here in Westford and we discussed also... we want to have a win-win for Fedora + GNOME brand 15:40:17 <stickster> It's hard to say this would block F21 release 15:40:31 <jwb> that's not what i asked :) 15:41:24 <stickster> I suspect we could have a plan together by then, but depending on the level of change needed, it seems like that could be difficult 15:41:25 <ryanlerch> IMO, it would be great to have some more branding in place for the Workstation for f21, to cement the Workstation as a product, and it's own thing. 15:41:54 <jwb> ok. so possible for f21 but not a blocker 15:42:00 <stickster> I guess it would depend on getting support from all involved, and not disrupting the release schedule 15:42:04 <jwb> ryanlerch, what about the websites rework? 15:43:47 <stickster> Ideally I think it would be good to get some brand input from someone who has expertise in brand appearance/effect on audience 15:44:06 <ryanlerch> the websites team is working on implementing the mockups that were proposed last week, and should have a preliminary implementation fairly solid by this time next week. I will need some input from the WG on some of the features that we want to highlight on the brochure page. 15:44:47 <ryanlerch> as for downloads, the workstation downloads page is going to have 2 options -- the 64 bit and 32 bit live images. -- 64bit being the default choice. 15:45:49 * stickster notes that the highlights don't need to be 100% diff between F20->F21. We should be emphasizing all the strong suits of the WS even if they've been there for a while 15:46:01 <stickster> er, maybe s/all// 15:46:04 <ryanlerch> stickster, +1 15:46:07 <stickster> "all" of them won't fit. 15:46:08 <cschalle> stickster, +1 15:46:25 <stickster> Release notes are where we talk about changes... the brochure is general promotion 15:46:40 <stickster> What do people think of saying something like "Built on GNOME technology" somewhere in there? 15:47:19 <stickster> I was thinking about it while driving this morning... 15:48:34 <drago01> stickster: let a windows or osx user read that an he/she would wonder wtf that means 15:48:35 <cschalle> yeah, I don't have a strong objection, but I kinda wanted to emphasize the FW being its own thing (and not just a vehicle for GNOME (or anyone else), so on that basis I am a bit tempted to try not making GNOME a bit part of the announcement for the first release 15:48:59 * stickster not hung up on it, just an idea :-) 15:49:10 <drago01> stickster: for people that know it it doesn't add much 15:49:16 <ryanlerch> cschalle, i kind of agree -- people that know what GNOME is will recognise it immediately. 15:49:30 <ryanlerch> from the screenshots and such 15:49:35 <stickster> true 15:49:47 <jwb> agreed 15:50:26 <stickster> What do people think about having a picture of fried pickles? 15:50:49 <cschalle> I think that would be in breach of our code of conduct ;) 15:50:53 * stickster pipes down, just being goofy ;-) 15:51:09 <drago01> you can't really download food 15:51:12 <jwb> anything else on branding? i'd like to get to the open seat briefly 15:51:16 <jwb> not sure we have time for anything else 15:51:39 <drago01> what else was on the agenda? 15:51:46 <drago01> xdg spec? 15:51:50 <jwb> package additions/removals and the xdg thing 15:52:00 <drago01> ok 15:52:15 <stickster> kalev had an item about added/removed apps too 15:52:21 <stickster> oh, sorry -- thanks jwb 15:52:29 <jwb> thanks for the update ryanlerch 15:52:31 * stickster too old & slow 15:52:36 <jwb> #topic Open WG seat 15:52:48 * kalev notes that we don't have aday today. 15:52:51 <jwb> so last meeting we had rdieter_work say he was interested and aday was on PTO 15:52:59 <jwb> and i haven't heard from aday in the interim 15:53:05 <kalev> I hear he should be back next week 15:53:24 <jwb> does the WG want to wait to talk to aday? 15:53:38 <cschalle> yes, please 15:54:00 <kalev> I'd like to wait too 15:54:10 <jwb> ok 15:54:17 <stickster> Yeah, that would be fair 15:54:42 <jwb> ok, we'll wait 15:54:49 <jwb> #topic open floor 15:55:05 <jwb> we'll do a short open floor and see if we can cover the other agenda items on the list 15:55:23 <jwb> anyone have anything? 15:55:41 <stickster> kalev: package stuff? 15:55:56 <kalev> yes, but that's not urgent, we're running out of meeting time now 15:55:59 <jwb> stickster, i don't think we'll have time to walk through it 15:56:01 <juhp_> just wondering what time is the next meeting in two weeks? 15:56:12 <jwb> juhp_, oh, timechange stuff :\ 15:56:34 <jwb> let's see... i think .eu and .us will be on the same time by then? 15:56:35 <stickster> yeah, no idea how big the list is... jwb, kalev, does this need some sort of special time to get through before next biweekly? 15:56:49 <jwb> stickster, i think we can probably walk through most of it on the list 15:56:53 <stickster> k 15:56:55 * kalev nods. 15:57:03 * stickster eats some more fried pickles 15:57:29 <jwb> juhp_, what time is 15:00 utc in your locale on nov 5? 15:58:00 <juhp_> jwb, 00:00 JST 15:58:08 <juhp_> that's the current meeting time right? 15:58:12 <jwb> yes 15:58:27 <ryanlerch> JST = Jens Standard Time ? 15:58:30 <jwb> which is 11am east coast US 15:58:33 <juhp_> haha 15:58:38 <juhp_> J = Japan :) 15:59:02 <juhp_> no DST here... 15:59:11 <kalev> date --date='15:00 utc nov 5' on the command line seems to work for figuring out the local time 15:59:35 <jwb> kalev, yeah. 10am EST which is an hour earlier 15:59:46 <jwb> i'll create a whenisgood and send it around again 15:59:52 <kalev> it's an hour earlier for Europe too 15:59:52 <juhp_> cool 16:00:01 <juhp_> kalev, yes 16:00:07 <jwb> i'm sure everyone else's meetings will shift because of the change and we might wind up conflicting a bunch if we stay at 15:00 utc 16:00:16 * jwb hates timezones 16:00:34 <jwb> #action jwb to send a whenisgood for the next meeting 16:00:40 <jwb> anything else for open floor? 16:00:43 <juhp_> thanks! 16:00:48 <stickster> Thanks jwb 16:01:00 <jwb> #info follow up on package adds/removals on-list in the meantime 16:01:04 <jwb> thanks all 16:01:09 <jwb> #endmeeting