Call for agenda for Workstation WG meeting 2015-Aug-05

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/31/2015 10:38 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> Next meeting is Wednesday, 2015-Aug-05 at 1400 UTC / 10:00am
>> US-Eastern.
>>
>> * What are the next steps for Atomic Workstation?
>>
>> I've kept the agenda short because there wasn't time for this item
>> last meeting, and I think it will easily consume the hour.  (The
>> password policy can and should be sorted out on list at this point.)
>> However, if there are urgent additions please feel free to respond
>> with a suggestion!
>
> There's a new "Validity of i686 as a release blocker" thread on
> fedora-devel where the kernel team is saying that they are no longer
> interested in supporting i686:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-August/213118.html

2 things.

1) The kernel team said they are no longer interested in i686 back in
February, not today.

2) The thread from today is started by me and reflects only my
opinion, not that of the entire kernel team.  While I suspect they
have similar thoughts, I would not be so bold as to speak for them on
this topic.

> We should make up a position whether we want to continue with the i686
> version of the Workstation product. I can see two outcomes depending on
> which way this goes; one would be that we ask the kernel team to
> continue supporting i686, and the other one is that we stop shipping the
> i686 Workstation images.

i686 won't be a priority for the kernel team going forward.
Particularly not with the other items we are looking at tackling.  You
can ask, but we will likely have to politely decline.

Support is a strange word here, which is why I chose priority.  We
currently build i686.  We even test it in our autotest harness.  We
simply don't prioritize i686 bugs or issues at all.  Our time is
better spent elsewhere.

> I don't think anything in between (we ship unsupported images) makes sense.
>
> I am personally of the mind that it's time to let i686 go. Perhaps not
> for F23, but F24 for sure.

I would personally agree with F24.

josh