Hello all,
I wanted to share the plan for refactoring the Katello Repositories model
and get some feedback.
We have been wanting to break up repositories for some time. The
repositories table has a field "content_type", which is used to handle yum,
file, docker, ostree, and puppet repos. In
I also have not made a contribution to the RFC repo, but from time to time
have read others. I like the idea of the RFC repo, but wonder if it could
be better organized.
One frustration I have with it is it is if you want to get a full idea of
new and upcoming ideas, you have to browse each
I also like the RFC repository. I have not merged or closed a lot of my
RFCs because I consider the designs to still be open discussions that need
re-visting and continued visibility. The ability to comment on specific
issues and have multiple threads going makes it much easier to follow than
a
On 03/13/2017 07:10 AM, Tomas Strachota wrote:
For me the biggest advantage of RFC repo over design discussions on
mailing list is that when you come back to it later, you immediately
see the latest state of the proposal without any need for reading
through the whole email thread. At the same
Hello Sean,
I'm sorry if we created a feeling that we're doing something behind closed
doors.
Let me explain the background. When Roxanne started to look at the UI/UX
improvements we quickly realized that Foreman with all its plugins is a big
application and it seemed as too much to digest at
Hey!
So lzap suggested this.. lets see how it goes :-)
*I'm looking to solve the following issues*
- I would like to have a multi-homed proxy.
- I would like clients to connect to a Proxy when there is a NAT between.
My approach has been for proxies to have multiple URLs and during
provisioning
