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

I'd join regularly, after few years for which I receive all notifications from redmine, I can confirm there are bugs without much attention. If we won't have representatives from all areas, we might need some tooling to ping people in redmine tickets. Again, after few years, I can tell that

Re: [foreman-dev] Re: Moving katello-packaging to foreman-packaging

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden < ew...@kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:49:55AM -0500, Eric D Helms wrote: > >> The work for this transition has completed. All packages have been moved >> at >> this point, and katello-packaging fully

Re: [foreman-dev] Re: Moving katello-packaging to foreman-packaging

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:49:55AM -0500, Eric D Helms wrote: The work for this transition has completed. All packages have been moved at this point, and katello-packaging fully deprecated. The packaging PR testing on foreman-packaging has been updated to account for these new packages as well

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

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > Apparently my arguments aren't coming out coherently - I think we've > misunderstood each other on a couple of points... > >> I'm afraid the amount of time waiting doesn't have any influence on >> the feeling if

Re: [foreman-dev] Re: Moving katello-packaging to foreman-packaging

The work for this transition has completed. All packages have been moved at this point, and katello-packaging fully deprecated. The packaging PR testing on foreman-packaging has been updated to account for these new packages as well as the rubygem-katello, katello-installer and hammer_cli_katello

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

So on IRC the idea of a regular issue triage for core issues in redmine came up, and I think it's a pretty good idea. I think we'd want to do this on a public stream (but recorded, I think), and then anyone interested can join. We'd need a minimum number of people involved to make it work, I

Re: [foreman-dev] Abandoned plugins under theforeman github org

On 08/11/17 11:12, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > +1 on just marking it in README and in the github description. +1 from me too. I can make those changes as an Org owner if need be. Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To

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

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > On 08/11/17 12:35, 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

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

On 08/11/17 12:35, 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 > hard to

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

Apparently my arguments aren't coming out coherently - I think we've misunderstood each other on a couple of points... > I'm afraid the amount of time waiting doesn't have any influence on > the feeling if something is big bang or not. Sure, that's not what I was trying to say, I was just

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

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 hard to discover [1] and awkward to work with being inside a

Re: [foreman-dev] Abandoned plugins under theforeman github org

+1 on just marking it in README and in the github description. On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:07:43PM +0100, Ivan Necas wrote: +1 of marking as unmaintained, but keeping around -- Ivan On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Timo Goebel wrote: ... i would not remove it from the

Re: [foreman-dev] Abandoned plugins under theforeman github org

+1 of marking as unmaintained, but keeping around -- Ivan On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Timo Goebel wrote: > ... i would not remove it from the github org. There are even more abandoned > plugins there. I would not delete the code, maybe somebody wants to start > work

Re: [foreman-dev] Abandoned plugins under theforeman github org

... i would not remove it from the github org. There are even more abandoned plugins there. I would not delete the code, maybe somebody wants to start work on them again. I would mark them as unmaintained in the repo description, remove the jenkins jobs and remove them from packaging. Timo

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

Just a quick update on threading, since that's causing the most pain... On 05/11/17 18:51, Martin Bačovský wrote: > - for some reason the threads are not kept together in my Gmail and the > messages from one thread are split into multiple threads even if they seem > to have same subject. I'm not

AW: [foreman-dev] Merge permission for theforemen/foreman-ansible-modules

Thank you all! Especially for the encouraging words. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von:Eric D Helms > Gesendet: Mittwoch 1 November 2017 20:29 > An: foreman-dev > Betreff: Re: [foreman-dev] Merge permission for >