13:12:41 <stickster> #startmeeting Workstation WG
13:12:42 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon May 21 13:12:41 2018 UTC.
13:12:42 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
13:12:42 <zodbot> The chair is stickster. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:12:42 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:12:42 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation_wg'
13:12:44 <stickster> #meetingname workstation
13:12:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation'
13:12:54 <mclasen> .hello mclasen
13:12:55 <zodbot> mclasen: mclasen 'Matthias Clasen' <mclasen@redhat.com>
13:12:57 <stickster> #chair cschalle otaylor kalev ryanlerch mclasen juhp
13:12:57 <zodbot> Current chairs: cschalle juhp kalev mclasen otaylor ryanlerch stickster
13:13:00 <ryanlerch> .hello ryanlerch
13:13:01 <zodbot> ryanlerch: ryanlerch 'Ryan Lerch' <rlerch@redhat.com>
13:13:05 <stickster> .hello pfrields
13:13:06 <zodbot> stickster: pfrields 'Paul W. Frields' <stickster@gmail.com>
13:13:06 <juhp> hi
13:13:11 * stickster hands gavel to cschalle
13:13:16 <cschalle> thank you
13:13:38 <cschalle> ok, so looking at the agenda it seems we have 3 open tickets today
13:13:53 <cschalle> first one is regarding the PyCharm repo
13:14:32 <cschalle> ticket was opened by cantazaro, but he is not here it seems
13:15:16 <cschalle> so this is actually a repo we carried for quite a while as it came in when the Copr repos where allowed, which precedes the general 3rd party stuff by at least a year
13:15:23 * mclasen pings mcatanzaro
13:15:36 <stickster> phracek says in the ticket that he wasn't consulted (afresh?) about having his repo added, and therefore the package(s) for PyCharm weren't ready for F28.
13:15:52 <stickster> But apparently it is now?
13:16:22 * mclasen just can't work well at this speed, with years between initial effort and final merge
13:16:59 <stickster> yeah, this took a long time to get done. It would probably have been a good idea to resync with the repo owners, but yay 20/20 hindsight
13:17:05 <otaylor_> well, hopefully that part is over for 3rd party repos...
13:17:24 <cschalle> stickster, yeah he updated it, and I have an email thread with him from 2015 when his repo was added, but I guess the general 3rd party stuff brought new attention to it. Also I think hughsie changed the GNOME Software requirements since 2015 which is probably why it feel out (due to not having proper metadata in the yum repo)
13:17:31 <stickster> OMG 2015.
13:17:42 <kalev> gnome-software side should be pretty solid now
13:17:51 <stickster> Perhaps it should be a timed TODO on the WG at Beta time to check freshness of included 3rd party repos.
13:18:09 <stickster> The program manager could put this on the schedule as a readiness item.
13:18:26 <cschalle> mclasen, well in this case it wasn't that it was slow to get merged, but that we checked it when we merged it, but then GNOME Software became strickter in the meantime and we forgot to re-check
13:18:39 <cschalle> stickster, agreed
13:18:44 <otaylor_> Is it better if we remove the repo at beta time, and the package isn't there for that reason, rather than if it's not there because it's not there?
13:18:50 <stickster> #action stickster email jkurik and ask for a schedule item for this
13:18:53 <stickster> #undo
13:18:53 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by stickster at 13:18:50 : stickster email jkurik and ask for a schedule item for this
13:19:13 <kalev> I think it makes sense for someone to check repos before release, yep
13:19:14 <stickster> #action stickster email jkurik and ask for a schedule item at Beta to check freshness of 3rd party repos and readiness for GA
13:19:24 <cschalle> otaylor, the package was always there (although not in latest version) the problem here was that he hadn't run the commands to add the metadata to the yum repo
13:19:44 <cschalle> and thus GNOMe software ignored it
13:19:47 <kalev> I think this is incorrect
13:20:07 <kalev> the copr missed F28 repo, so gnome-software didn't see it because of that
13:20:08 <mcatanzaro> .hello catanzaro
13:20:09 <zodbot> mcatanzaro: catanzaro 'Michael Catanzaro' <mcatanzaro@gnome.org>
13:20:18 <cschalle> ah ok
13:20:19 <kalev> it's not that gnome-software got stricter, it's just that the package was missing. full stop :)
13:20:24 <stickster> kalev++
13:20:24 <zodbot> stickster: Karma for kalev changed to 1 (for the f28 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
13:20:26 <otaylor> A schedule item to check on all the repos sounds good - but it's "check with the intent to fix problems" not "check with the intent to remove"
13:20:55 <juhp> Also copr can not auto create new branches
13:21:04 <juhp> erm can _now_
13:21:40 <juhp> I should say populate
13:21:48 <juhp> if so configured
13:22:09 <juhp> That might help to avoid this kind problem a bit
13:22:14 <juhp> of
13:23:07 <juhp> If that makes sense - I think it might not be the default config
13:23:17 <juhp> for repos
13:23:57 <cschalle> ok, so I think we resolved this issue then, with maintainer having updated his repo and with now planning to check for these kinds of issues as part of our release process going forward
13:24:07 * kalev agrees.
13:24:51 <cschalle> ok, so next item. Adding VS Code as a 3rd party app
13:25:00 <cschalle> https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/52
13:25:25 <aday> that's already available through flathub, fwiw
13:25:30 <cschalle> I haven't had a chance to test the 3rd MS is offering to verify its readiness for inclusion
13:25:59 <cschalle> aday, yeah, we need to take another look at how we can enhance flathub to make it useful for Fedora
13:26:25 <mcatanzaro> It's a weird request because it is open source. Couldn't it be packaged for Fedora? Do we want to use third-party repos for software that could be packaged in Fedora?
13:26:30 <mclasen> it is useful for fedora already...
13:26:34 <aday> software is performing really well with flathub enabled
13:26:46 <aday> it's great to see a stream of new apps popping up
13:26:47 <cschalle> mcatanzaro, I would think that using the  official MS RPM isn't a bad idea
13:26:48 <juhp> mcatanzaro: yeah I asked that
13:27:21 * stickster hasn't looked at vscode at all. I wonder how much effort an official package in Fedora involves. My bet is a *lot* due to unbundling concerns.
13:27:23 <otaylor> Though - how does vscode in *particular* work as a flatpak - IDE's tend to have issues with the sandboxing - not having access to host tools
13:27:26 <kalev> I'd like to enable some kind of flatpak repo for F29 just to test this out a bit from gnome-software perspective, doesn't really matter which
13:27:40 <otaylor> If vscode is electron (isn't it?) it's basically impossible to package within Fedora
13:27:42 <juhp> cschalle: yes the requester also suggested it would reduce maintenance burden
13:27:48 <aday> otaylor: yep, electron
13:28:01 <ryanlerch> otaylor: yes, it is electron IIRC
13:28:14 <juhp> otaylor: right - I think tools is an issue - there is ticket about it
13:28:45 <mclasen> kalev: it would be good to test with both flathub and an oci registry
13:28:56 * kalev nods.
13:29:14 <cschalle> ok, so my suggestion is that before we can process this proposal someone needs to test and verify the repo works properly, ie. got all the appstream metadata included especially verify that it is included in the yum repo metadata so GNOME Softare will display it
13:29:15 * mclasen doubts we'll ever see that oci registry, at this point :-(
13:29:39 <stickster> msg ryanlerch Thanks for the audacity article. I'll get it social'd if it's not already
13:30:01 <cschalle> we should also see if we can get someone from MS to 'own' the inclusion of it if possible
13:30:02 <stickster> oops, sorry :-)
13:30:44 <cschalle> I am happy to take an action item to do the two items above.
13:31:01 <cschalle> everyone fine with that approach?
13:31:13 <cschalle> then we can bring it up again in our next meeting
13:31:19 <ryanlerch> i'm +1 forstartingthe processto add it
13:31:59 * stickster likes it too. cschalle, what about similar for Atom?
13:32:11 * stickster would think the Github folks could manage as well
13:32:23 <aday> there are a lot of good developer-focused electron apps
13:32:30 <cschalle> stickster, yeah, I talked to the github guys a long time ago, we should reach out again now
13:32:58 <cschalle> stickster, you and I need to sync up to decide what we are doing with the 3rd party repo dev docs
13:33:01 <aday> github desktop, gitkraken, design tools like figma. there's even a snazzy terminal app
13:34:10 <aday> https://electronjs.org/apps?category=developer-tools
13:34:40 <cschalle> btw, anyone here should feel free to approach 3rd parties and encourage them to propose their app for Fedora
13:34:56 <stickster> cschalle: despairing.
13:35:06 <otaylor> cschalle: Is there something in the 3rd party repo dev docs that can be extracted as a checklist for approviing the request?
13:35:16 <cschalle> otaylor, yes
13:35:38 <cschalle> otaylor, which is partly why I want it up, to have a clear list of 3rd party repo expectations to point to
13:36:03 <cschalle> stickster, IMHO we should just plop it onto the wiki and forget about the fedora developer site
13:36:23 <cschalle> anyway, I think we have a path forward here for item 2. So lets move to item 3
13:36:48 <cschalle> Item 3 is a request for a page with further information on 3rd party software for end users
13:36:55 <cschalle> https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/41
13:37:07 * FranciscoD is here to answer any questions about this one/make clarifications
13:37:12 <cschalle> there is a draft already that I see that Owen and Kalev have looked at at least
13:37:17 <cschalle> thank you FranciscoD
13:37:43 <stickster> cschalle: At this point I'm inclined to agree -- although we could maneuver it to the official docs.fp.o site soon using Asciidoc/Antora when that's ready
13:38:07 <cschalle> so to me our course of action here should be to a) cover any last minute comments or questions and b) if people are mostly fine with it, we should formally approve it
13:38:08 <stickster> That would put it under git control but also available for PRs
13:38:15 <juhp> I think it is already Live on the wiki
13:38:16 <cschalle> stickster, nod
13:38:26 <FranciscoD> cschalle: the wg agreed to move my draft to the workstation's wiki space
13:38:31 <FranciscoD> (which I've done)
13:38:43 <juhp> FranciscoD: thanks
13:38:47 <cschalle> ah ok, so are we basically done with this ticket then and just need to close it?
13:38:49 <FranciscoD> A few minor kinks now: otaylor suggested a summary, which I've added
13:39:03 <FranciscoD> b) should this be moved to the docs website as originally planned?
13:39:15 <FranciscoD> c) What does the WG think of the video?
13:39:56 <FranciscoD> (the last 3 comments on the ticket)
13:40:28 <cschalle> trying to look at that video now, but the FSF website seems to be dog slow
13:40:49 <juhp> FranciscoD: I watched the FSF video
13:41:31 * mclasen not convinced about putting fsf videos up
13:41:47 <juhp> while I am sympathetic, I am not sure either how well it fits
13:42:08 <FranciscoD> I'd prefer if we made a Fedora specific video too, but I can't promise a time line on that
13:42:11 <otaylor> FranciscoD: I think the summary helps - thanks! (comma before 'in it's out of box configuration', out-of-the-box, not out-of-box :-)
13:42:17 * FranciscoD is not really a video person
13:42:55 <juhp> FranciscoD: sure that's big job potentially
13:43:06 <mcatanzaro> I'm not sure a video is necessary. I think it's OK since it's just a wiki page. But isn't there enough information on the page already?
13:43:13 <cschalle> well I have no comment on the specific video not having seen it, but the fact that my system is still stuck on Waiting for www.fsf.org is probably a disqualification in itself
13:43:17 <kalev> I wonder if it would make sense to swap the first two sentences, so that the very first sentence says what the third party repos are?
13:43:22 <juhp> unless mattdm wants to make something :)
13:43:42 <FranciscoD> otaylor: fixed, thanks :)
13:44:26 <otaylor> I don't think a video makes sense unless we have something that we think is  fully on-message for Fedora
13:44:31 <cschalle> as for moving the page to the docs site I have no objection, although I assume that is a decision for mattdm?
13:44:39 <juhp> I am confused: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Software_Repositories says there no text?
13:44:51 <FranciscoD> juhp: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories is the link
13:44:52 <ryanlerch> juhp: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories
13:45:06 <juhp> ah
13:45:15 <juhp> right, thanks
13:45:15 <FranciscoD> (that's where gnome-software points to)
13:45:25 <juhp> my bad
13:45:58 <ryanlerch> juhp: there is a link in the ticket to that broken link you posted here, FWIW
13:46:09 <cschalle> I suggest that we drop/skip video and that FranciscoD will check in with mattdm if he wants the page where it is or wants to move it.
13:46:24 <juhp> ryanlerch: yep nod - I just fixed it ;)
13:46:31 <FranciscoD> Sounds good. I can handle the move and the redirection etc
13:46:32 <juhp> ryanlerch: hehe
13:46:52 <kalev> I'll note that we'll need to maintain the wiki page until F28 is EOL, as the GA gnome-software is going to keep pointing to that
13:47:13 <FranciscoD> kalev: I was thinking infra could set up a re-direct (I expect that can be done)
13:47:16 <kalev> but we can definitely set up a new page, just need to maybe occasionally sync things back to the wiki page
13:47:20 <kalev> ahh, perfect
13:47:52 <FranciscoD> that way none of the current links break - we have posts on the magazine etc that use the link to the wiki
13:48:12 * kalev nods.
13:48:47 <FranciscoD> Great. I'll work on that then. cschalle can you please drop a comment on the ticket, and I'll go hound mattdm when I can :)
13:48:56 <FranciscoD> Thanks everyone
13:49:04 <cschalle> FranciscoD, will do, and thanks again for your work on this page, really appreciated
13:49:15 <FranciscoD> hth :)
13:49:21 <cschalle> ok, so open floor, anyone got any items they want to bring up?
13:49:22 <juhp> kalev: I also thinking swapping the paragraphs might be clearer
13:49:47 <FranciscoD> cschalle: just a query. Are these pages current? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_policies
13:50:01 <FranciscoD> they pop up on my searches, so I was wondering
13:50:12 <cschalle> FranciscoD, yes they should be
13:50:53 <cschalle> although ideally one could say they too should get moved somewhere else as they also cover non-workstation specific stuff
13:50:59 <cschalle> like moby images
13:51:15 <FranciscoD> cschalle: and this one: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy
13:51:47 <cschalle> FranciscoD, no, that is the old one that the one you just linked to above replaced
13:52:21 <cschalle> so this last link should be dropped/replaced with the one above
13:52:49 <FranciscoD> ah, yes, that would be good. A little confusing otherwise :)
13:53:48 <cschalle> ok, I take an action item to look at resolving that
13:54:00 * stickster notes that almost no #action or #info used in this meeting, makes logs/minutes almost useless :-(
13:54:02 <cschalle> ok, anything else or should we close this meeting?
13:54:16 <cschalle> stickster, oops sorry, I am a IRC meeting n00b
13:54:36 <cschalle> #action cschalle to follow-up on MS Code inclusion ticket
13:54:36 <stickster> If anyone took a specific action, please do: #action <nick> <thing you're doing>
13:55:00 <cschalle> #action cschalle try to resolve 3rd party policy pages on Fedora
13:55:17 <cschalle> #action stickster and cschalle to get 3rd party docs online somewhere
13:55:31 * mclasen ponders if a useless meeting can ever have useful logs
13:55:36 * mclasen goes to stand in the corner
13:55:39 <cschalle> #action FranciscoD to follow up with mattdm about where to put 3rd party end user page
13:55:50 <cschalle> ok, I think that covers it
13:55:59 <cschalle> what is the command to end meeting again?
13:56:08 <stickster> #endmeeting