[DRAFT] What the new Status Pages potentially look like

All, We're piloting a new format for the podling status pages. Specifically, the current status page leaves a lot to be desired - it's basically crafted html, there's no structure and its hard to find missing items. The end goal is to have a web form editable in Whimsy, but until we get more

Re: Traffic Ops Default Profile Management

Here's a snag I just hit while testing. It seems that there is a filename filter on the "Import Profile" that assumes whichever file you import is named "*.traffic_ops". So for files named "*.json" you have to manually change that filter. I can open a JIRA for this to make the default look for

Re: Traffic Ops Default Profile Management

I actually had the thought of a new tab at the same level as Downloads called "Profiles" that we point to in the documentation, that way (for newbies) the "Profiles" concept seems like an important concept. It also allows us to grow the "Profiles" area separate of the artifact downloads (.rpms,

Re: Traffic Ops Default Profile Management

I would make sure we clearly mark a section on the Downloads page for Default Profile Downloads. I would also make sure we update the Traffic Ops install doc to reflect that default profiles can be downloaded from the website; assuming Jan's PR doesn't do this already. I am +1 on having ATS in the

Re: Traffic Ops Default Profile Management

I'm ok with that unless someone says otherwise. On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Shmulik Asafi wrote: > Just a small refinement on the names, perhaps be explicit about the > profiles being for ATS as well, as in: > > EDGE_ATS_.json > MID_ATS_.json > > So in the future if we

Re: Traffic Ops Default Profile Management

We can include anything we think is valuable for a "default" setup (do you have an ORIGIN profile for me to include, just tell me where it is and I'll take a lookg). Re: TRAFFIC_PORTAL, we haven't come across the need as of yet. On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <

Re: Traffic Ops Default Profile Management

Just a small refinement on the names, perhaps be explicit about the profiles being for ATS as well, as in: EDGE_ATS_.json MID_ATS_.json So in the future if we have other caches supported, it already takes this under consideration (even if not, I don't think we're trading off anything here) On

Re: Traffic Ops Default Profile Management

Can we include an ORIGIN profile? Does TRAFFIC_PORTAL need a profile too? (I’ve never set it up) —Eric > On Jun 12, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Dewayne Richardson wrote: > > Based upon the discussion around how we manage the default profiles Traffic > Ops profiles for 2.0 and 2.1, I

Traffic Ops Default Profile Management

Based upon the discussion around how we manage the default profiles Traffic Ops profiles for 2.0 and 2.1, I propose we add instructions that under the TC Website documentation "Downloads" http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/index.html. The profiles will be in the format that

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC4)

Sorry, I have been out the last few days and I was holding off on my vote on purpose. Last week I installed Traffic Ops and I noticed that all of the default data that I expected to be there was not there. For example, default EDGE and MID profiles were not created, same for the default

Re: Component Naming Standards - Project Management

+1 On Jun 12, 2017, at 9:54 AM, Dave Neuman > wrote: To be honest, I would hold off on that for now since we should be moving to full github soon. Once we move to full github we can slice and dice things up. On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Durfey,

Re: Component Naming Standards - Project Management

To be honest, I would hold off on that for now since we should be moving to full github soon. Once we move to full github we can slice and dice things up. On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Durfey, Ryan wrote: > I wanted to start organizing the Jira issues and the first

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC4)

The time period for the vote is up, but I’m looking for a few more votes. So far we have 2 +1s, but I don’t think anyone has actually installed the RC yet. Thanks, Eric > On Jun 8, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Dan Kirkwood wrote: > > you're right -- it shouldn't.. thanks! > > On