[foreman-dev] CfgMgmtCamp 2018 tickets are available

Hi all, Quick heads up, if you're looking at coming to CfgMgmtCamp in February, then the first slice of tickets are now available (and you do need one - they're free but venue space is limited). I've got mine ;) http://cfgmgmtcamp.eu/index.html#registration Greg -- You received this message

Re: [foreman-dev] Discourse - summary of week 1

Please count me into Ivan category. Now with new mail experience, I want to have some time for reevaluation. If that feels as mailing list and can be used the same way, with forcing me to open webui just to use advanced features, such as poll or syntax highlight, I would lean more to pro side.

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Move Foreman Jenkins Jobs to foreman-ci repository

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden < ew...@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 02:37:10PM +, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > >> On 09/11/17 14:25, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: >> >>> If a separate repository, would it not be as simple as adding a git

[foreman-dev] Discourse - summary of week 1

Hi all, If you've been avoiding the Discourse mega-thread because you're super busy, I hope this summary will be useful. I'll keep it short(ish) and still represent eveyone accurately (I hope). TLDR: cautiously positive overall, some great debate, next steps at the end of this mail Some stats

Re: [foreman-dev] speeding up tests

On úterý 7. listopadu 2017 11:12:31 CET Ivan Necas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Ohad Levy wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The challenge: > > > > As a developer, I feel under utilized waiting for tests, the current test > > suite for foreman core takes over an hour,

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Move Foreman Jenkins Jobs to foreman-ci repository

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 02:37:10PM +, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: On 09/11/17 14:25, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: If a separate repository, would it not be as simple as adding a git clone? Possibly, I don't have that much insight into the entire deployment flow. Hence my preference of

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Move Foreman Jenkins Jobs to foreman-ci repository

On 09/11/17 14:25, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: >> If a separate repository, would it not be as simple as adding a git >> clone? > > Possibly, I don't have that much insight into the entire deployment > flow. Hence my preference of making small changes since our backlog is > big enough

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Move Foreman Jenkins Jobs to foreman-ci repository

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:04:55AM -0500, Eric D Helms wrote: On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden < ew...@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> wrote: On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:35:04AM -0500, Eric D Helms wrote: All, I brought this idea up in a separate thread, but want to

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Move Foreman Jenkins Jobs to foreman-ci repository

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden < ew...@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:35:04AM -0500, Eric D Helms wrote: > >> All, >> >> I brought this idea up in a separate thread, but want to formalize it into >> it's own direct proposal. As of today, the

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Move Foreman Jenkins Jobs to foreman-ci repository

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:35:04AM -0500, Eric D Helms wrote: All, I brought this idea up in a separate thread, but want to formalize it into it's own direct proposal. As of today, the Jenkins Job (JJB) configurations live buried inside the foreman-infra repository. I believe this makes them

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Move Foreman Jenkins Jobs to foreman-ci repository

+1 It makes it better discoverable for new users/contributors and also makes the repo easier to consume by others (SatelliteQE uses it). On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Ohad Levy wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Greg Sutcliffe > wrote:

Re: [foreman-dev] Regular Foreman-core issue triage?

Writing this up inspired me to capture it for the long term [1]. I'd be happy to run the first one or two given my experience with it (and assuming the timeslot works) just to get into the groove. Note that our process for triaging does require some overall Redmine process change with the way we

Re: [foreman-dev] Regular Foreman-core issue triage?

On 08/11/17 16:47, Eric D Helms wrote: [tons of useful stuff] Thanks Eric! I think that format will work for us too, might take a little practice. We'll need volunteers to be the runner, ofc ;) On 09/11/17 07:03, Marek Hulan wrote: > I'd join regularly, after few years for which I receive all >

Re: [foreman-dev] [Event] Foreman Community Demo Items - Thu 16 Nov 3pm [BST]

I think there are some demo worthy PRs merged, is there a volunteer to demo them if they don't appear on agenda? I could take some. -- Marek On čtvrtek 9. listopadu 2017 13:28:23 CET Ori Rabin wrote: > Hi all, > > Demo time! As always, have a think for items which have been completed since >

[foreman-dev] Status of the nightlies

Hello all, tl;dr: nightlies are fixed, we're staying on top of them. report issues As you might have picked up, the nightlies were a bit unstable and unreliable lately. The biggest problem was that core and packaging drifted apart. For now this has been synced up. Now the challenge is to

[foreman-dev] [Event] Foreman Community Demo Items - Thu 16 Nov 3pm [BST]

Hi all, Demo time! As always, have a think for items which have been completed since the last demo on 2017-10-26. There is a query that will show you items completed (i.e. marked as closed) since the last demo [2]. Please add demo items following the instructions on the agenda page [3]. If you

Re: [foreman-dev] Propsing a move from Google Groups to Discourse

Another update on this, almost there :) Threading now apears entirely functional. Ewoud and I ran a private test using Mailgun last night (so as not to spam everyone in case it was still broken). As you can see, in this Gist, it appears to be working in Mutt:

Re: [foreman-dev] speeding up tests

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Ivan Necas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Lukas Zapletal wrote: >> We should start tracking test breakages in time, if we have a test >> that did not break for a year, lets delete it. As simple as that. It's >> added