13:01:38 #startmeeting Workstation WG 13:01:38 Meeting started Mon Sep 10 13:01:38 2018 UTC. 13:01:38 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 13:01:38 The chair is kalev. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:01:38 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 13:01:38 The meeting name has been set to 'workstation_wg' 13:01:51 #meetingname workstation 13:01:51 The meeting name has been set to 'workstation' 13:01:55 #topic Roll call 13:02:00 morning! who's around today? 13:02:03 .hello pfrields 13:02:04 stickster: pfrields 'Paul W. Frields' 13:03:02 .hello petersen 13:03:03 juhp: petersen 'Jens Petersen' 13:03:16 kalev: ryanlerch is out sick and sent regrets 13:03:22 #chari stickster juhp otaylor ryanlerch 13:03:24 ahh k 13:03:27 #chair stickster juhp otaylor ryanlerch 13:03:27 Current chairs: juhp kalev otaylor ryanlerch stickster 13:03:39 I think mclasen might still be travelling 13:04:00 Ah, I see -- cschaller as well? 13:04:12 not sure 13:04:20 *nod 13:05:13 .hello otaylor 13:05:14 otaylor: otaylor 'Owen Taylor' 13:05:58 Seems we're short one body for quorum, fwiw. But if there are things we can discuss or move forward, I'm fine to keep going here :-) 13:06:42 #chair cschalle 13:06:42 Current chairs: cschalle juhp kalev otaylor ryanlerch stickster 13:06:48 now we should have quorum! 13:07:06 soooo, let's get started 13:07:20 we have quite an agenda in https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting 13:07:38 I'd like to put an item to the top of the agenda and start with that 13:07:47 #topic GNOME 3.30.0 megaupdate 13:08:11 I've been out like half of the summer, but back since last week and have been wrangling the 3.30 updates 13:08:33 * stickster saw builds rolling in 13:08:56 we were much behind there and as it stands right now, what's going to be in F29 beta is a mix of 3.28 and early 3.29 development snapshots + some final 3.30 packages 13:09:18 oh 13:09:19 there was a bit of discussion on the list about that, some of that spilled over to -devel and -test lists as well 13:09:52 #info 3.30.0 megaupdate prepared and in updates-testing now 13:10:11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-85d637c544 13:10:35 I'd like some help here, first with testing if anyone has time to give it a spin 13:10:52 and second I'd like some opinions if we should try to push it to be included in F29 beta or not 13:11:56 Man, it would be a shame to not get a better package set into F29 Beta... the mixture sounds like it'll be rather doomy 13:12:01 kalev: I think including it makes more sense than landing a big pile of updates after beta 13:12:34 the upshot is anyone on the beta is going to get a big pile of those updates, yeah. so I'm not sure what good it does to delay that 13:12:41 I'm leaning that way as well 13:13:23 sgallagh and others had concerns that it might destibilize beta and delay it if something goes wrong 13:13:44 mattdm seemed to like the idea of including it in beta 13:14:04 it's a fair worry, but OTOH it seems like these packages should be in *better* shape than 3.29.x 13:14:23 * kalev nods. 13:14:48 kalev: Obviously it would be better if we could test out composes with the big pile of updates before landing them and seeing if anyhting breaks - but without that capability, I think going ahead makes more sense than the alternative 13:15:02 * kalev nods. 13:15:11 okay, I'll try to push for it then 13:15:30 if anyone has time to hang out at the blocker review meeting in the evening and argue for it, that would be wonderful :) 13:15:31 Cool 13:15:53 kalev: Do you know the time of that? 13:16:00 * mattdm shows up :) 13:16:00 proposal: #agreed Workstation WG would like to see the GNOME 3.30.0 megaupdate land in F29 beta 13:16:10 can we vote for ^^ please? so I have some WG backing to show 13:16:16 +1 13:16:18 +1 13:16:26 +1 13:16:30 kalev: My concern is that it's a huge number of rebases well-past when we froze. It's effectively a restart of the Freeze 13:16:33 +1 assuming no significant regressions 13:16:39 It seems odd to have one of our Editions not have its fundametnal software close to the version intended to release 13:16:48 +1 13:16:53 And it's a bigger jump (at least in version numbers) than we usually see at this stage, because some things are going straight from 3.28 13:17:00 Ideally, we'd be able to release a workstation beta separately from Server 13:17:06 but eh, here we ware 13:17:08 are 13:17:18 I think it would be a good idea for WG members to participate in the testing of a candidate, if it's agreed that there'll be a compose with 3.30 included. 13:17:31 What I want, though, is to make sure that the primary effort is supported by the edition WG 13:17:31 Also, we *have* already seen a regression in pygobject3, which is somewhat alarming 13:17:37 Not assume that QA (or someone) will just do it 13:17:49 yeah. what stickster is saying :) 13:17:49 sgallagh: that's already fixed before any builds reached testing 13:17:57 stickster: right 13:18:05 sgallagh: it's clear that it's non-ideal, but I don't think anyone would propose that we don't go to 3.30 during the F29 cycle and stick with 3.28 ... so it's a question of how best to manage that 13:18:20 kalev: Sure, and I appreciate the rapid response, but it *does* indicate that such things can and may happen 13:18:43 I support sgallagh's concern particularly because sgallagh tends to do hours of extra work including late nights and weekends making sure releases go out 13:18:45 otaylor: I guess I don't understand why 3.29.92 isn't the right choice 13:19:01 sgallagh: of course, but that is the exact reason why I want it in beta -- to get as much testing as possible, so that final can be less painful 13:19:19 mattdm: indeed. 13:19:22 sgallagh: For beta or GA? But also, it's sound like we don't have 3.29.92 - we have "mixed set of development snapshots" 13:19:24 sgallagh: and I'm confident we have the resources to hunt down regressions in a reasonable time if anything comes up 13:19:56 otaylor: Could we meet in the middle with the expectation that GNOME will target 3.31.92 for Beta next time around and not do this same late-delivery dance? 13:20:19 kalev: no getting married again in the next 6 months! ;-) 13:20:23 ok! :) 13:20:31 sgallagh: Do we have release schedules for F30 and GNOME 3.32 already? 13:20:42 Or at least have Workstation contact FESCo and request an exemption in advance, rather than force the issue mid-Freeze? 13:20:50 stickster: I think so, yes 13:21:03 sgallagh: ^ yes, that *for sure* (advance notice/comms) 13:21:07 sgallagh: I think that's a reasonable expectation to have - and clearly we should have manage to shift the work around and get it done anyways 13:21:10 (Oh, congratulations on your wedding, kalev!) 13:21:16 I think it's difficult to not have a schedule clash, given that GNOME releases every 4 weeks (and 2 weeks during RC time) and Fedora freezes are 3 weeks 13:21:18 sgallagh, yeah, sorry about that I think kalev being gone and general summer vacations cause a bit of a breakdown this time 13:21:22 kalev: I didn't even realize that was why you were gone! Congratulations 13:21:23 sgallagh: thanks! :) 13:21:31 sgallagh: f30 release schedule yes 13:21:31 stickster: thanks! 13:21:52 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/30/Schedule 13:21:53 here's GNOME 3.32 schedule: https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointThirtyone 13:21:59 #link https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointThirtyone 13:22:04 thanks kalev 13:22:10 #chair mattdm 13:22:10 Current chairs: cschalle juhp kalev mattdm otaylor ryanlerch stickster 13:22:10 OK, I think I'm on-board with this exception this time, if only because of the non-3.29 bits in the mix. 13:22:23 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/30/Schedule 13:22:26 #link https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointThirtyone 13:22:51 But like I said, it would be really beneficial to the Project as a whole if we had advance coordination about disconnects like this. 13:23:14 FESCo might have decided (for example) to skip entering Freeze and just assert that we were moving to the Rain Date for Beta 13:23:15 yes, indeed 13:23:34 Given everyone else a little extra unfrozen time too 13:23:46 anyway! looks like we have an agreement here and +5 votes as well 13:23:50 Or not, but the option would have been therre 13:24:00 OK, I've said my piece. Thanks for listening :) 13:24:01 #agreed Workstation WG would like to see the GNOME 3.30.0 megaupdate land in F29 beta (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 13:24:07 Ha, yup -- 3.32 on 2019-03-11 and F30 beta freeze 2019-03-06 :-D 13:24:11 thanks sgallagh and mattdm! 13:24:27 Experience has shown that moving the Fedora schedule back past these dates leads to other problems 13:24:49 sgallagh: also, I think it would be fair for you to put WG on the hook to assist with extra work here 13:25:09 stickster: GNOME 3.31.92 rc release is set for same day as F30 freeze 13:25:37 mattdm: Let's move that discussion to a theoretical FESCo ticekt 13:25:41 What I'd like to see is a F30 change for GNOME 3.32 with a freeze exception scheduled in 13:26:04 seems sensible to me 13:26:07 okay, but I want that fesco ticket to be started by a Change submission :) 13:26:22 ack 13:26:36 ack, I can do the 3.32 Change 13:26:51 #action Kalev to ask for a 3.30.0 megaupdate freeze exception 13:27:06 #action Kalev to file a 3.32 Change for Fedora 30 13:27:19 otaylor: you asked earlier when is the blocker review meeting, I think it's at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-blocker-review, but I couldn't find an official mail 13:27:42 otaylor: noon EDT 13:27:48 sgallagh: Thanks 13:28:03 ok, let's move on 13:28:27 #topic Review F29 deliverables 13:28:30 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/72 13:29:22 I think we can just +1 it and move on, don't think anything has changed wrt deliverables 13:29:55 +1 13:30:28 +1 13:30:33 proposal: #agreed Workstation WG acknowledges the deliverables. No requirements have changed compared to F28. 13:30:36 +1 13:31:29 there was some talk in another ticket about dropping the install tree, which I think would get rid of the netinstall, but that's for F30 I think 13:32:17 +1 13:32:41 +1 13:33:09 kalev: I just realized I hadn't seen dusty's comment on filing an RFE on that install tree issue -- done now, https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/issues/1600 13:33:17 thanks stickster 13:33:22 #agreed Workstation WG acknowledges the deliverables. No requirements have changed compared to F28. 13:33:40 (+1 from me too) 13:33:49 #topic Should we include NetworkMaanger-ppp by default? 13:33:52 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/70 13:34:16 I 13:34:18 I have no clue here if it's something that we should do or not 13:34:25 I'd want to see feedback from the NM maintainers 13:35:02 makes sense 13:35:04 #info kalev to add NM maintainers to ticket, revisit in two weeks 13:35:09 I don't see any big requires list for this. Pulls in ppp of course, and that doesn't seem to have any big stacks behind it. 13:35:57 +1 kalev 13:35:57 * kalev nods. 13:36:04 #topic Decide whether to include gnome-shell-chrome 13:36:04 +1 13:36:07 https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/66 13:37:03 so this is what's replacing the npapi (firefox) plugin that the gnome shell extensions web site was using for installing extensions 13:37:17 If it's needed for Firefox and Chrome, this seems like a no-brainer to me 13:37:17 Making extensions.gnome.org work out of the box without a need to layer something on silverblue sounds right to me 13:37:26 do we need to remove the old npapi plugin? 13:37:56 hm, not sure. right now it's still installed by gnome-shell 13:38:00 /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/libgnome-shell-browser-plugin.so 13:38:03 (I think ppp for mobile modem doggles) 13:38:42 I think we should add it too 13:38:48 kalev: well, probably we don't *need* to remove it - we could just wait for upstream to elimintate it 13:38:53 * kalev nods. 13:39:15 yeah, I think we would have heard complaints if we _had_ to remove it to make gnome-shell-chrome work 13:39:39 *nod 13:39:51 +1 from me for including it 13:39:58 +1 here, obviously 13:40:01 +1 13:40:02 +1 13:41:20 cschalle: ? 13:42:05 +1 13:42:08 #agreed Workstation WG agrees to include gnome-shell-chrome (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 13:42:40 ok, I think that's all from the meeting list. we have a few more tickets tagged with the meeting tags, but looks like some of them got discussed last week when I was gone 13:43:12 and the dropping of evolution ticket I'd rather not discuss without mclasen, and I forgot to invite aday and Milan 13:43:32 so, that's all from me 13:43:35 #topic Open Floor 13:43:55 I'd like to promote my Flatpak creation call-for-participation 13:44:10 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/GMJWTQBZW37A64IJMTQOUT7VQYW7UQKO/#ZD7JW7C7QGKS5R7G3LGI4EV2VG3CMM5D 13:44:32 #info otaylor has flatpak building working in koji 13:44:47 awesome work, Owen! 13:45:17 as a sidenote here, we need to come up with a plan for Fedora Flatpaks ie. repository inclusion etc, but lets do that next time 13:45:18 In summary, while there are some loose ends to tie up, we're ready for people to dive in and start creating Flatpaks from Fedora RPMs (and would appreciate people doing that to find holes in the tools and documentation) 13:45:42 otaylor++ 13:45:42 mattdm: Karma for otaylor changed to 3 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 13:46:12 There is also a page of 300+ applications that should be easy to create Flatpaks of - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flatpak:Easy 13:46:31 otaylor++++ 13:46:37 otaylor++ 13:46:40 stickster: Karma for otaylor changed to 4 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 13:46:45 zoddie you scamp 13:46:48 cookie party! 13:46:54 otaylor++ 13:46:55 kalev: Karma for otaylor changed to 5 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 13:47:41 * otaylor wants Flatpaks more than cookies! 13:48:15 otaylor: Sorry if I'm missing something obvious -- what does the colored number represent in that page? 13:48:39 is that like "relative difficulty"? 13:48:50 stickster: the colored number represents the the number of dependencies that are needed to be rebuilt 13:48:53 Oh never mind -- I get it, it's deps 13:48:55 *jinx 13:49:22 stickster: it's one measure of difficulty (or at least, time you have to sit waiting for builds) 13:49:25 :-) 13:50:04 #info next meeting is on Monday Sep 24, chair is ryanlerch 13:50:16 thanks for coming everybody! 13:50:20 #endmeeting