I was typing quickly, maybe it was confusing, but nobody said we aim
to *replace* fog at all. We were discussing decoupling from Fog API
inside Foreman so we could enable writing non-Fog providers, which led
to more opened topics like facets, smart-proxy communication or
dynflow. This would be
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ivan Necas wrote:
> Timo Goebel writes:
>
>>> On 22. May 2017, at 12:27, Ohad Levy wrote:
>>>
>>> Since we get a lot of lift from fog, especially for popular providers (e.g.
>>> ec2) IMHO its not a
Timo Goebel writes:
>> On 22. May 2017, at 12:27, Ohad Levy wrote:
>>
>> Since we get a lot of lift from fog, especially for popular providers (e.g.
>> ec2) IMHO its not a good idea to remove fog, which means that we balance
>> between community
> On 22. May 2017, at 12:27, Ohad Levy wrote:
>
> Since we get a lot of lift from fog, especially for popular providers (e.g.
> ec2) IMHO its not a good idea to remove fog, which means that we balance
> between community contributions to fog (e.g. stuff we won't "enjoy"
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I brought an interesting topic about RHEV support in Foreman, Ori
> pointed out that RHEV v3 API is going to be deprecated soon (rumors
> are 4.2 which is very soon) and since we are still using v3 via
> rbovirt,