On 2/14/14, 5:05 AM, "Cliff Perry" <cpe...@redhat.com> wrote:
>On 08/01/14 13:33, Silvio Moioli wrote: >> Dear Spacewalk Community, >> >> here at SUSE we are about starting development on a new feature called >> Action Chaining, and we would like to try and get you involved from the >> very beginning this time. >> >> This is about scheduling a "chain" of actions on a server or a group of >> servers, instead of single operations as it is currently possible. A >> "chain" is a sequence of operations like package installs, configuration >> changes, reboots, etc. to be executed one after another when scheduled. >> >> To limit development time, we currently plan on supporting a subset of >> actions based on users' feedback we collected so far. You can find >> a complete list, together with a more precise description of this >> feature, some screenshots and mockups here: >> >> http://wiki.novell.com/index.php/SUSE_Manager/ActionChaining >> >> Note: these mockups have a SUSE Manager look and feel since they have >> also been used for internal discussions in SUSE. Please simply ignore >> the styling at this point. > >http://turing.suse.de/~smoioli/action-chaining-mockups/list.html > >I suspect this page really wants a column for when is the event >scheduled to be executed. > >Merge/use either only created or modified, vs both - I don't think we >need them both. > >http://turing.suse.de/~smoioli/action-chaining-mockups/editor.html > >This is a bit worrying, it looks like it would make it hard/complex to >render information meaningfully. Because they are chained and you have >different systems for each portion of the event - does it mean, you >don't reboot the 10 systems, if one of the two config deployment fails? > >While the power to add/remove systems for each portion sounds nice, it >makes my brain hurt, and I'd have to assume it would for those managing >the systems - selecting X systems and being stuck to work with them >only, sounds more sane approach. > > >> >> We appreciate your input about this, especially if there is any aspect >> that you consider blocking for upstreaming. >> >> Development on this feature will take place on the >> master-action-chaining branch on the Spacewalk repo and during in the >> coming weeks. I plan to regularly push commits there so that you can >> comment on code at any time. Hopefully this will ease acceptance checks >> and merging when development ends. >> >> Thanks for your cooperation in advance, >> >I don't see anything bad in getting this into Spacewalk, or that would >go against Spacewalk's future desires. > >Cliff > >_______________________________________________ >Spacewalk-devel mailing list >Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel > Would it not make the most sense for Action Chains to be defined without any systems, then to schedule an action chain to run against either a single system or SSM? -- Lamont Peterson Sr. Systems Administrator | Unix Systems Operations Intermountain healthcare Office: 801.442.6497 _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
