Is it only the Rails App that depends on Foreman Core? What's reasonable plan to me is:
a) Extract core part that does not depend on Foreman core into a simple gem (that's what you propose I guess) and make it a hard dependency of core. b) The rest of foreman-tasks (Rails App/Engine - administrative UI part for tasks) remains an *optional* plugin in a separate (plugin) repository. c) We include the plugin in the default installation set but Foreman should work without the plugin as well, it is only needed to perform administrative tasks. If that's what you propose, why do we need temporary workarounds? Can't we just do it right away? The timing is good, 1.14 is getting out soon, we can start digging. On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Ivan Necas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello friends, > > You've might noticed we started using foreman-tasks inside the > foreman-core since [1] was merged. Unfortunately, we hit issues in the > packaging phase and the proposed workarounds were not accepted ([2] > [3]). > > Based on various discussions, as well as on the fact that > foreman-tasks is already part of infrastructure for pretty wide amount > of plugins (Katello, Remote Execution, Chef, Salt, Ansible, Docker…), > it seems moving foreman-tasks code-base into the core as part of the > Foreman is where people want to get us moving. > > Therefore, let me start proposing the plan for moving this subject forward. > > The plan would be: > > 1. get the the foreman-tasks-core, that is part of the tasks code > being use both in foreman server and smart-proxy code into separate > repository > 2. get the foreman-tasks on the same set of rubocop rules the foreman > code uses > 3. fill unit test gaps > 4. open PR to foreman with the foreman-tasks functionality > 5. open PR to get the hammer-cli-foreman-tasks inside hammer-cli-foreman > > The target version for this would be foreman 1.15. > > In the mean time, I would like to kindly ask for trying to > find an acceptable workaround in [2] and [3] until this is done. > > Also, since this will be pretty large change already, I would like to > avoid radical changes done as part of the PR: as already said, > foreman-tasks has already quite significant user base though various > plugins that we need to support and I would rather prefer keeping > those as additional issues to track and address based on priorities, > as well as going though proper deprecation cycle if we need to > deprecate something. > > Opinions, comments, questions, concerns (and remember, :+1: is also a > valid response:) > > [1] - https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/3670 > [2] - https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pull/1436 > [3] - https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pull/1437 > > -- Ivan > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Later, Lukas @lzap Zapletal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
