Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

About extracting puppet to a plugin: Preparation work for it is tracked here. It has been a while from my latest check, but I don't think we are too far from getting it done. I think 2 releases should be enough for changing foreman's code,

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

Hello, While I understand lzap's initial idea of "let's just change to 2.0", I think this is a good opportunity to include some breaking changes. Whether the version we do this in is 1.17, 1.18, or 1.19 is a decision that we need to make, I see some benefits to each of them: 1.17 already includes

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:57:24AM +0100, Marek Hulán wrote: Dne středa 29. listopadu 2017 14:36:18 CET, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden napsal(a): On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 02:18:35PM +0100, Lukas Zapletal wrote: >> Bikeshedding about SemVer aside, I'm good with doing a 2.0 release in >> the near

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

Dne středa 29. listopadu 2017 14:36:18 CET, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden napsal(a): > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 02:18:35PM +0100, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > >> Bikeshedding about SemVer aside, I'm good with doing a 2.0 release in > >> the near future, but *please* lets use it to deprecate / drop stuff

AW: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

www.atix.de> > > > -Original message- > From: Eric D Helms <ericdhe...@gmail.com <mailto:ericdhe...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Wednesday 29th November 2017 18:18 > To: foreman-dev <foreman-dev@googlegroups.com > <mailto:foreman-dev@googlegroups.com>&g

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

; --- > > ATIX - The Linux & Open Source Company > https://www.atix.de > > > > > -Original message- > *From:* Eric D Helms <ericdhe...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday 29th November 2017 18:18 > *To:* foreman-dev <foreman-dev@googlegroups.com>

RE: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

Source Company https://www.atix.de -Original message- From: Eric D Helms <ericdhe...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday 29th November 2017 18:18 To: foreman-dev <foreman-dev@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0 My two cents are that we

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

;> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- >> > Von:Lukas Zapletal <l...@redhat.com> >> > Gesendet: Mittwoch 29 November 2017 14:18 >> > An: foreman-dev <foreman-dev@googlegroups.com> >> > Betreff: Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0 >> &

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

> Bernhard Suttner > > ATIX - The Linux & Open Source Company > https://www.atix.de > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > > Von:Lukas Zapletal <l...@redhat.com> > > Gesendet: Mittwoch 29 November 2017 14:18 > > An: foreman-dev <foreman-dev@googlegroup

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

my thoughts... > > Best regards, > Bernhard Suttner > > ATIX - The Linux & Open Source Company > https://www.atix.de > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > > Von:Lukas Zapletal <l...@redhat.com> > > Gesendet: Mittwoch 29 November 2017 14:18 > > An: foreman-

AW: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

17 14:18 > An: foreman-dev <foreman-dev@googlegroups.com> > Betreff: Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0 > > > Bikeshedding about SemVer aside, I'm good with doing a 2.0 release in > > the near future, but *please* lets use it to deprecate / drop stuff we >

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 02:18:35PM +0100, Lukas Zapletal wrote: Bikeshedding about SemVer aside, I'm good with doing a 2.0 release in the near future, but *please* lets use it to deprecate / drop stuff we no longer want to maintain. Otherwise there's no real point to it. I agree we can take

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

> Bikeshedding about SemVer aside, I'm good with doing a 2.0 release in > the near future, but *please* lets use it to deprecate / drop stuff we > no longer want to maintain. Otherwise there's no real point to it. I agree we can take this "opportunity" to drop some deprecated things like V1 API,

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

On 29/11/17 12:17, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > So I'd disagree we use SemVer. I didn't mean we use it *properly*, just that anytime I see X.Y.Z as a versioning structure, my mind immediately thinks SemVer. That we *do* use it in other places only adds to the confusion. What I am

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

Anything that's on the mailing list with [plugin author action required] is likely breaking the API. Recently we had the mass change from FactoryGirl to FactoryBot (which is causing a lot of pain while cherry picking to older releases as well). That had to be coordinated to sync it up with

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

Where exactly do we have any info about SemVer for core? I know about plugins, but not core. Core plugin API gets rarely broken, we've been only extending it in the past (although there were some cases I think). LZ On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Greg Sutcliffe

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

On 29/11/17 10:45, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > Oh no, *everyone* is talking features. :-) This has really nothing to > do with features, because that can easily fall into "neverending" > category of what's big enough change or not. Well, *technically* we use SemVer (I know, I know...). For that,

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

Oh no, *everyone* is talking features. :-) This has really nothing to do with features, because that can easily fall into "neverending" category of what's big enough change or not. We've heard that 1.17 is possible, yeah I do agree but only if that's confirmed by the release engineer, not sure if

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

+1 to the idea. Although 1.17 is a good candidate in terms of features, lets give ourselves time to decided what should be deprecated. Anytime after 1.17 is good with me! On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > Given 1.17 will have: > > * vertical nav

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

Given 1.17 will have: * vertical nav * rails 5.X I think this is a good candidate, if we're ever going to do it. It's also a good chance to put the woes of 1.16 behind us :) 1.17 hasn't been branched, but it's soon. If we're going to do this, we'll need to decide what should be deprecated.

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:39:42AM +0100, Lukas Zapletal wrote: What have Linus Torvalds and me in common? We both don't remember numbers higher than ten. I propose to follow Linux kernel versioning and do 2.0 instead of 1.18 for no other reason that it's just too high number and it's

Re: [foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

... I think we should take increasing the major version as a chance and remove some old compatibility stuff with it like e.g. APIv1. Or fix some APIv2 inconsistencies. Maybe we could move foreman tasks to core. Just some suggestions. Just increasing the major version is in, but I think just a

[foreman-dev] Proposal: Foreman 1.18 = 2.0

What have Linus Torvalds and me in common? We both don't remember numbers higher than ten. I propose to follow Linux kernel versioning and do 2.0 instead of 1.18 for no other reason that it's just too high number and it's approaching crazy 20. "One point eighteen" sounds crazy, I always mess up