Re: [foreman-dev] Aligning Foreman & Katello git repositories
I'd start to with using forklift for bats testing because it's the easiest and most stand alone action. On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 02:13:16PM +0200, Marek Hulán wrote: +1 for every suggestion! Which would you like to start with? I'd be interested in helping with forklift being used in jenkins for running bats tests. Later I hope with installers merge. -- Marek On středa 2. srpna 2017 14:33:44 CEST Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: Hello all, As many of you know we have some overlapping work between Foreman and Katello. This is an effort to reduce some of this. This is only focussing on git repositories but once this is in place this should be easier. It's all proposals and we will need to work out details. One might notice that much of this has been talked about before but never reached a conclusion, which is something we tend to do a lot. Let's break the cycle and make some decisions. # foreman-bats -> forklift merge Currently we have foreman-bats[1] and forklift[2] which both include a vagrant config and bats tests. I'd propose we merge foreman-bats into forklift and deprecate foreman-bats. Most of bats (if not all) should already be there so I believe we just need to verify we can test Foreman using Forklift. Since I added Debian we need to make Ubuntu work and verify Jenkins can still test everything it used to. This should be a relative easy task for which a lot of work has already been done. Tasks/Challenges I can think of: * Add Ubuntu to Forklift * Get bats passing on all supported configs * Verify foreman-bats is no longer used on CI * Add a deprecation warning in foreman-bats' README # katello-packaging -> foreman-packaging At the moment Foreman packages are maintained in foreman-packaging[3] with an RPM branch for every release (rpm/1.15, rpm/1.16, rpm/develop) and a the same with deb/ for obvious reasons. On the Katello side there is katello-packaging[4] with KATELLO-3.3, KATELLO-3.4 and master. There was a discussion in #1541[5] about merging katello-packaging into foreman-packaging, but it didn't reach a conclusion. The general opinions were in favour but there might be space and traffic constraints when actually building the packages. My proposal is to revive this effort. Given the practical constraints are related to the hosting it makes sense to me to start with just merging the git repositories. Is it possible to do the builds from a single git repository and end up on different servers for now? If that's possible, we can look at finding proper hosting and which yum repositories we should offer. # katello modules -> theforeman namespace (including modulesync) Right now we have a foreman-installer-modulesync[6] and katello-installer-modulesync[7] to maintain the base layout of modules. These are all very similar and with little effort we can maintain all modules with the same layout. The bigger impact is that we need to migrate all modules at least on the github level to the theforeman github namespace. It also implies that when you make changes to modulesync that needs to be applied to about double the modules which can be more effort. The upside is that the overall quality will be higher. If this all works well we can look at moving the katello modules to the foreman namespace on the Puppet forge as well but I think that benefit is smaller and will take effort on the (direct) users since the forge doesn't support redirects. # katello-installer -> foreman-installer Currently the katello-installer[8] builds on the foreman-installer[9] with additional modules and scenarios. Sometimes the katello build breaks on dependencies and then the cache gets out of sync with the foreman thus breaking on older builds as well. I'd like to merge this in a single installer with one set of modules and multiple scenarios. The impact is that the installer will be bigger but the katello-installer should be less fragile. It can also simplify packaging. Care will need to be taken that the needed repositories are present but there are multiple ways of fixing this. Currently we assume the user has installed the katello release RPM which enables the needed yum repositories but that will not be true anymore if we ship it within foreman-installer. We'll also want to remove/disable the katello scenarios on Debian/Ubuntu. You may notice I haven't thought this through too much and it may depend on a unified Yum repository structure but there are big usability and reliability wins we can gain. [1]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-bats [2]: https://github.com/theforeman/forklift [3]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging [4]: https://github.com/katello/katello-packaging [5]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pull/1541 [6]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-installer-modulesync [7]: https://github.com/katello/foreman-installer-modulesync [8]: https://github.com/katello/katello-installer [9]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-installer -- You received this
Re: [foreman-dev] Aligning Foreman & Katello git repositories
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:16:05PM -0400, Eric D Helms wrote: On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden < ew...@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> wrote: Hello all, As many of you know we have some overlapping work between Foreman and Katello. This is an effort to reduce some of this. This is only focussing on git repositories but once this is in place this should be easier. It's all proposals and we will need to work out details. One might notice that much of this has been talked about before but never reached a conclusion, which is something we tend to do a lot. Let's break the cycle and make some decisions. # foreman-bats -> forklift merge Currently we have foreman-bats[1] and forklift[2] which both include a vagrant config and bats tests. I'd propose we merge foreman-bats into forklift and deprecate foreman-bats. Most of bats (if not all) should already be there so I believe we just need to verify we can test Foreman using Forklift. Since I added Debian we need to make Ubuntu work and verify Jenkins can still test everything it used to. This should be a relative easy task for which a lot of work has already been done. Tasks/Challenges I can think of: * Add Ubuntu to Forklift * Get bats passing on all supported configs * Verify foreman-bats is no longer used on CI * Add a deprecation warning in foreman-bats' README I think this would be great to centralize. What are your thoughts on whether we are over loading Forklift as is? Should we consider merging all bats to a single repository and keeping the testing aspect a separate entity from the deployment entity? While I think we cover a lot of things in forklift I do think it's an advantage right now and splitting of bats doesn't add a lot. There is tight coupling between the provisioning of the server(s) and testing them so often you will modify both. # katello-packaging -> foreman-packaging At the moment Foreman packages are maintained in foreman-packaging[3] with an RPM branch for every release (rpm/1.15, rpm/1.16, rpm/develop) and a the same with deb/ for obvious reasons. On the Katello side there is katello-packaging[4] with KATELLO-3.3, KATELLO-3.4 and master. There was a discussion in #1541[5] about merging katello-packaging into foreman-packaging, but it didn't reach a conclusion. The general opinions were in favour but there might be space and traffic constraints when actually building the packages. My proposal is to revive this effort. Given the practical constraints are related to the hosting it makes sense to me to start with just merging the git repositories. Is it possible to do the builds from a single git repository and end up on different servers for now? If that's possible, we can look at finding proper hosting and which yum repositories we should offer. I would definitely like to see this, and just because the git repositories merge doe snot mean we have to modify our yum repository and Koji/Copr management immediately. It's good to hear that merging git repos is a separate action. That means we can proceed step by step. One issue that stands unresolved is how to allow for independent updates to Katello or really any plugin within the yum repositories. This is something I am still giving a lot of thought to, plugin release streams so that broken plugins aren't automatically pushed out to the yum repositories. This would also open up nightly builds for plugins (of which katello has a requirement on already). I'm not sure what you mean by this. Don't we do this already? # katello modules -> theforeman namespace (including modulesync) Right now we have a foreman-installer-modulesync[6] and katello-installer-modulesync[7] to maintain the base layout of modules. These are all very similar and with little effort we can maintain all modules with the same layout. The bigger impact is that we need to migrate all modules at least on the github level to the theforeman github namespace. It also implies that when you make changes to modulesync that needs to be applied to about double the modules which can be more effort. The upside is that the overall quality will be higher. If this all works well we can look at moving the katello modules to the foreman namespace on the Puppet forge as well but I think that benefit is smaller and will take effort on the (direct) users since the forge doesn't support redirects. Yes please! # katello-installer -> foreman-installer Currently the katello-installer[8] builds on the foreman-installer[9] with additional modules and scenarios. Sometimes the katello build breaks on dependencies and then the cache gets out of sync with the foreman thus breaking on older builds as well. I'd like to merge this in a single installer with one set of modules and multiple scenarios. The impact is that the installer will be bigger but the katello-installer should be less fragile. It can also simplify packaging. Care will need to be taken that the needed repositories a
Re: [foreman-dev] Aligning Foreman & Katello git repositories
+1 for every suggestion! Which would you like to start with? I'd be interested in helping with forklift being used in jenkins for running bats tests. Later I hope with installers merge. -- Marek On středa 2. srpna 2017 14:33:44 CEST Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > Hello all, > > As many of you know we have some overlapping work between Foreman and > Katello. This is an effort to reduce some of this. This is only > focussing on git repositories but once this is in place this should be > easier. It's all proposals and we will need to work out details. > > One might notice that much of this has been talked about before but > never reached a conclusion, which is something we tend to do a lot. > Let's break the cycle and make some decisions. > > # foreman-bats -> forklift merge > > Currently we have foreman-bats[1] and forklift[2] which both include > a vagrant config and bats tests. I'd propose we merge foreman-bats into > forklift and deprecate foreman-bats. Most of bats (if not all) should > already be there so I believe we just need to verify we can test Foreman > using Forklift. Since I added Debian we need to make Ubuntu work and > verify Jenkins can still test everything it used to. > > This should be a relative easy task for which a lot of work has already > been done. > > Tasks/Challenges I can think of: > > * Add Ubuntu to Forklift > * Get bats passing on all supported configs > * Verify foreman-bats is no longer used on CI > * Add a deprecation warning in foreman-bats' README > > # katello-packaging -> foreman-packaging > > At the moment Foreman packages are maintained in foreman-packaging[3] > with an RPM branch for every release (rpm/1.15, rpm/1.16, rpm/develop) > and a the same with deb/ for obvious reasons. On the Katello side there > is katello-packaging[4] with KATELLO-3.3, KATELLO-3.4 and master. > > There was a discussion in #1541[5] about merging katello-packaging into > foreman-packaging, but it didn't reach a conclusion. The general > opinions were in favour but there might be space and traffic constraints > when actually building the packages. > > My proposal is to revive this effort. Given the practical constraints > are related to the hosting it makes sense to me to start with just > merging the git repositories. Is it possible to do the builds from a > single git repository and end up on different servers for now? > > If that's possible, we can look at finding proper hosting and which yum > repositories we should offer. > > # katello modules -> theforeman namespace (including modulesync) > > Right now we have a foreman-installer-modulesync[6] and > katello-installer-modulesync[7] to maintain the base layout of modules. > These are all very similar and with little effort we can maintain all > modules with the same layout. > > The bigger impact is that we need to migrate all modules at least on the > github level to the theforeman github namespace. It also implies that > when you make changes to modulesync that needs to be applied to about > double the modules which can be more effort. The upside is that the > overall quality will be higher. > > If this all works well we can look at moving the katello modules to the > foreman namespace on the Puppet forge as well but I think that benefit > is smaller and will take effort on the (direct) users since the forge > doesn't support redirects. > > # katello-installer -> foreman-installer > > Currently the katello-installer[8] builds on the foreman-installer[9] > with additional modules and scenarios. Sometimes the katello build > breaks on dependencies and then the cache gets out of sync with the > foreman thus breaking on older builds as well. > > I'd like to merge this in a single installer with one set of modules and > multiple scenarios. The impact is that the installer will be bigger but > the katello-installer should be less fragile. It can also simplify > packaging. > > Care will need to be taken that the needed repositories are present but > there are multiple ways of fixing this. Currently we assume the user has > installed the katello release RPM which enables the needed yum > repositories but that will not be true anymore if we ship it within > foreman-installer. > > We'll also want to remove/disable the katello scenarios on > Debian/Ubuntu. > > You may notice I haven't thought this through too much and it may depend > on a unified Yum repository structure but there are big usability and > reliability wins we can gain. > > [1]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-bats > [2]: https://github.com/theforeman/forklift > [3]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging > [4]: https://github.com/katello/katello-packaging > [5]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pull/1541 > [6]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-installer-modulesync > [7]: https://github.com/katello/foreman-installer-modulesync > [8]: https://github.com/katello/katello-installer > [9]: https://github.com/theforeman/forem
Re: [foreman-dev] Aligning Foreman & Katello git repositories
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden < ew...@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> wrote: > Hello all, > > As many of you know we have some overlapping work between Foreman and > Katello. This is an effort to reduce some of this. This is only focussing > on git repositories but once this is in place this should be easier. It's > all proposals and we will need to work out details. > > One might notice that much of this has been talked about before but never > reached a conclusion, which is something we tend to do a lot. Let's break > the cycle and make some decisions. > > # foreman-bats -> forklift merge > > Currently we have foreman-bats[1] and forklift[2] which both include a > vagrant config and bats tests. I'd propose we merge foreman-bats into > forklift and deprecate foreman-bats. Most of bats (if not all) should > already be there so I believe we just need to verify we can test Foreman > using Forklift. Since I added Debian we need to make Ubuntu work and verify > Jenkins can still test everything it used to. > > This should be a relative easy task for which a lot of work has already > been done. > > Tasks/Challenges I can think of: > > * Add Ubuntu to Forklift > * Get bats passing on all supported configs > * Verify foreman-bats is no longer used on CI > * Add a deprecation warning in foreman-bats' README > I think this would be great to centralize. What are your thoughts on whether we are over loading Forklift as is? Should we consider merging all bats to a single repository and keeping the testing aspect a separate entity from the deployment entity? > > # katello-packaging -> foreman-packaging > > At the moment Foreman packages are maintained in foreman-packaging[3] with > an RPM branch for every release (rpm/1.15, rpm/1.16, rpm/develop) and a the > same with deb/ for obvious reasons. On the Katello side there is > katello-packaging[4] with KATELLO-3.3, KATELLO-3.4 and master. > > There was a discussion in #1541[5] about merging katello-packaging into > foreman-packaging, but it didn't reach a conclusion. The general opinions > were in favour but there might be space and traffic constraints when > actually building the packages. > > My proposal is to revive this effort. Given the practical constraints are > related to the hosting it makes sense to me to start with just merging the > git repositories. Is it possible to do the builds from a single git > repository and end up on different servers for now? > > If that's possible, we can look at finding proper hosting and which yum > repositories we should offer. > I would definitely like to see this, and just because the git repositories merge doe snot mean we have to modify our yum repository and Koji/Copr management immediately. One issue that stands unresolved is how to allow for independent updates to Katello or really any plugin within the yum repositories. This is something I am still giving a lot of thought to, plugin release streams so that broken plugins aren't automatically pushed out to the yum repositories. This would also open up nightly builds for plugins (of which katello has a requirement on already). > > # katello modules -> theforeman namespace (including modulesync) > > Right now we have a foreman-installer-modulesync[6] and > katello-installer-modulesync[7] to maintain the base layout of modules. > These are all very similar and with little effort we can maintain all > modules with the same layout. > > The bigger impact is that we need to migrate all modules at least on the > github level to the theforeman github namespace. It also implies that when > you make changes to modulesync that needs to be applied to about double the > modules which can be more effort. The upside is that the overall quality > will be higher. > > If this all works well we can look at moving the katello modules to the > foreman namespace on the Puppet forge as well but I think that benefit is > smaller and will take effort on the (direct) users since the forge doesn't > support redirects. > Yes please! > > # katello-installer -> foreman-installer > > Currently the katello-installer[8] builds on the foreman-installer[9] with > additional modules and scenarios. Sometimes the katello build breaks on > dependencies and then the cache gets out of sync with the foreman thus > breaking on older builds as well. > > I'd like to merge this in a single installer with one set of modules and > multiple scenarios. The impact is that the installer will be bigger but the > katello-installer should be less fragile. It can also simplify packaging. > > Care will need to be taken that the needed repositories are present but > there are multiple ways of fixing this. Currently we assume the user has > installed the katello release RPM which enables the needed yum repositories > but that will not be true anymore if we ship it within foreman-installer. > > We'll also want to remove/disable the katello scenarios on Debian/Ubuntu. > Yes please! The benefits here do
Re: [foreman-dev] Aligning Foreman & Katello git repositories
Overall, big +1 from me - it'll make my life easier too. Whilst I appreciate Katello is a big project in it's own right, it's never felt good to me that it lives in it's own world despite every other plugin being in the Foreman namespace. Obviously there's historical reasons for that, but tradition for tradtion's sake is no argument at all :) Some thoughts on the various points: # foreman-bats -> forklift merge This does indeed feel like duplication of effort. It's also an area where we have some flexibility, since we *can* choose to disable some types of test in the short term if we need to (obviously thats not ideal though). The path forward is clearly to get forklift where it needs to be before removing bats for good, +1 there. There's also the CentOS CI project, but I'll send a separate mail about that since it's additional to bats/forklift rather than integral. # katello-packaging -> foreman-packaging Overall, in favour, it makes it possible for me to do better metrics on Katello usage. About 1/3rd of our substantial budget from Rackspace goes on bandwidth, but what I can't see is how much of that is our own consumption for package building and testing. It may be worth looking into caching / internal Rackspace-IP mirrors for our builders before we take the plunge on this. As for the modules / installer, +1 in general, no specific comments :) If I can help at all from an infra perspective, let me know, especially if you need insights into the Rackspace usage etc. Greg -- 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 foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foreman-dev] Aligning Foreman & Katello git repositories
Sounds very good to me. Let's do this and find solutions for problems as we go. If bandwidth is an issue, Cloudflare CDN might be worth checking out for the packages. Timo > On 2. Aug 2017, at 14:33, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden > wrote: > > Hello all, > > As many of you know we have some overlapping work between Foreman and > Katello. This is an effort to reduce some of this. This is only focussing on > git repositories but once this is in place this should be easier. It's all > proposals and we will need to work out details. > > One might notice that much of this has been talked about before but never > reached a conclusion, which is something we tend to do a lot. Let's break the > cycle and make some decisions. > > # foreman-bats -> forklift merge > > Currently we have foreman-bats[1] and forklift[2] which both include a > vagrant config and bats tests. I'd propose we merge foreman-bats into > forklift and deprecate foreman-bats. Most of bats (if not all) should already > be there so I believe we just need to verify we can test Foreman using > Forklift. Since I added Debian we need to make Ubuntu work and verify Jenkins > can still test everything it used to. > > This should be a relative easy task for which a lot of work has already been > done. > > Tasks/Challenges I can think of: > > * Add Ubuntu to Forklift > * Get bats passing on all supported configs > * Verify foreman-bats is no longer used on CI > * Add a deprecation warning in foreman-bats' README > > # katello-packaging -> foreman-packaging > > At the moment Foreman packages are maintained in foreman-packaging[3] with an > RPM branch for every release (rpm/1.15, rpm/1.16, rpm/develop) and a the same > with deb/ for obvious reasons. On the Katello side there is > katello-packaging[4] with KATELLO-3.3, KATELLO-3.4 and master. > > There was a discussion in #1541[5] about merging katello-packaging into > foreman-packaging, but it didn't reach a conclusion. The general opinions > were in favour but there might be space and traffic constraints when actually > building the packages. > > My proposal is to revive this effort. Given the practical constraints are > related to the hosting it makes sense to me to start with just merging the > git repositories. Is it possible to do the builds from a single git > repository and end up on different servers for now? > > If that's possible, we can look at finding proper hosting and which yum > repositories we should offer. > > # katello modules -> theforeman namespace (including modulesync) > > Right now we have a foreman-installer-modulesync[6] and > katello-installer-modulesync[7] to maintain the base layout of modules. > These are all very similar and with little effort we can maintain all modules > with the same layout. > > The bigger impact is that we need to migrate all modules at least on the > github level to the theforeman github namespace. It also implies that when > you make changes to modulesync that needs to be applied to about double the > modules which can be more effort. The upside is that the overall quality will > be higher. > > If this all works well we can look at moving the katello modules to the > foreman namespace on the Puppet forge as well but I think that benefit is > smaller and will take effort on the (direct) users since the forge doesn't > support redirects. > > # katello-installer -> foreman-installer > > Currently the katello-installer[8] builds on the foreman-installer[9] with > additional modules and scenarios. Sometimes the katello build breaks on > dependencies and then the cache gets out of sync with the foreman thus > breaking on older builds as well. > > I'd like to merge this in a single installer with one set of modules and > multiple scenarios. The impact is that the installer will be bigger but the > katello-installer should be less fragile. It can also simplify packaging. > > Care will need to be taken that the needed repositories are present but there > are multiple ways of fixing this. Currently we assume the user has installed > the katello release RPM which enables the needed yum repositories but that > will not be true anymore if we ship it within foreman-installer. > > We'll also want to remove/disable the katello scenarios on Debian/Ubuntu. > > You may notice I haven't thought this through too much and it may depend on a > unified Yum repository structure but there are big usability and reliability > wins we can gain. > > [1]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-bats > [2]: https://github.com/theforeman/forklift > [3]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging > [4]: https://github.com/katello/katello-packaging > [5]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pull/1541 > [6]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-installer-modulesync > [7]: https://github.com/katello/foreman-installer-modulesync > [8]: https://github.com/katello/katello-installer > [9]: https://github.com/thefore
[foreman-dev] Aligning Foreman & Katello git repositories
Hello all, As many of you know we have some overlapping work between Foreman and Katello. This is an effort to reduce some of this. This is only focussing on git repositories but once this is in place this should be easier. It's all proposals and we will need to work out details. One might notice that much of this has been talked about before but never reached a conclusion, which is something we tend to do a lot. Let's break the cycle and make some decisions. # foreman-bats -> forklift merge Currently we have foreman-bats[1] and forklift[2] which both include a vagrant config and bats tests. I'd propose we merge foreman-bats into forklift and deprecate foreman-bats. Most of bats (if not all) should already be there so I believe we just need to verify we can test Foreman using Forklift. Since I added Debian we need to make Ubuntu work and verify Jenkins can still test everything it used to. This should be a relative easy task for which a lot of work has already been done. Tasks/Challenges I can think of: * Add Ubuntu to Forklift * Get bats passing on all supported configs * Verify foreman-bats is no longer used on CI * Add a deprecation warning in foreman-bats' README # katello-packaging -> foreman-packaging At the moment Foreman packages are maintained in foreman-packaging[3] with an RPM branch for every release (rpm/1.15, rpm/1.16, rpm/develop) and a the same with deb/ for obvious reasons. On the Katello side there is katello-packaging[4] with KATELLO-3.3, KATELLO-3.4 and master. There was a discussion in #1541[5] about merging katello-packaging into foreman-packaging, but it didn't reach a conclusion. The general opinions were in favour but there might be space and traffic constraints when actually building the packages. My proposal is to revive this effort. Given the practical constraints are related to the hosting it makes sense to me to start with just merging the git repositories. Is it possible to do the builds from a single git repository and end up on different servers for now? If that's possible, we can look at finding proper hosting and which yum repositories we should offer. # katello modules -> theforeman namespace (including modulesync) Right now we have a foreman-installer-modulesync[6] and katello-installer-modulesync[7] to maintain the base layout of modules. These are all very similar and with little effort we can maintain all modules with the same layout. The bigger impact is that we need to migrate all modules at least on the github level to the theforeman github namespace. It also implies that when you make changes to modulesync that needs to be applied to about double the modules which can be more effort. The upside is that the overall quality will be higher. If this all works well we can look at moving the katello modules to the foreman namespace on the Puppet forge as well but I think that benefit is smaller and will take effort on the (direct) users since the forge doesn't support redirects. # katello-installer -> foreman-installer Currently the katello-installer[8] builds on the foreman-installer[9] with additional modules and scenarios. Sometimes the katello build breaks on dependencies and then the cache gets out of sync with the foreman thus breaking on older builds as well. I'd like to merge this in a single installer with one set of modules and multiple scenarios. The impact is that the installer will be bigger but the katello-installer should be less fragile. It can also simplify packaging. Care will need to be taken that the needed repositories are present but there are multiple ways of fixing this. Currently we assume the user has installed the katello release RPM which enables the needed yum repositories but that will not be true anymore if we ship it within foreman-installer. We'll also want to remove/disable the katello scenarios on Debian/Ubuntu. You may notice I haven't thought this through too much and it may depend on a unified Yum repository structure but there are big usability and reliability wins we can gain. [1]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-bats [2]: https://github.com/theforeman/forklift [3]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging [4]: https://github.com/katello/katello-packaging [5]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pull/1541 [6]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-installer-modulesync [7]: https://github.com/katello/foreman-installer-modulesync [8]: https://github.com/katello/katello-installer [9]: https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-installer -- 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 foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
