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