Seems reasonable. If someone could put a "dumping ground" directory together that would help. (with an uncurated script as an example)
So, i'm getting a feeling we should roll back the bashscript gate, and go back to noop. Thoughts? Best Regards, JJ Asghar c: 512.619.0722 t: @jjasghar irc: j^2 On 9/29/15 3:29 PM, Kris G. Lindgren wrote: > If we are going to be stringent on formatting – I would also like to > see us be relatively consistent on arguments/env variables that are > needed to make a script run. Some pull in ENV vars, some source a rc > file, some just say already source your rc file to start with, others > accept command options. It would be nice if we had a set of curated > scripts that all worked in a similar fashion. > > Also, to Joe's point. It would be nice if we had two place for > scripts. A "dumping ground" that people could share what they had. > And a curated one, where everything within the curated repo follows a > standard set of conventions/guidelines. > > ___________________________________________________________________ > Kris Lindgren > Senior Linux Systems Engineer > GoDaddy > > From: Joe Topjian > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:43 PM > To: JJ Asghar > Cc: "openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org>" > Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops] > Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests > > So this will require bash scripts to adhere to bashate before being > accepted? Is it possible to have the check as non-voting? Does this > open the door to having other file types be checked? > > IMHO, it's more important for the OSOps project to foster > collaboration and contributions rather than worry about an accepted > style. > > As an example, yesterday's commits used hard-tabs: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228545/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228534/ > > I think we're going to see a lot of variation of styles coming in. > > I don't want to come off as sounding ignorant or disrespectful to > other projects that have guidelines in place -- I fully understand and > respect those decisions. > > Joe > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM, JJ Asghar <j...@chef.io > <mailto:j...@chef.io>> wrote: > > Awesome! That works! > > Best Regards, > JJ Asghar > c: 512.619.0722 <tel:512.619.0722> t: @jjasghar irc: j^2 > > On 9/29/15 1:27 PM, Christian Berendt wrote: > > On 09/29/2015 07:45 PM, JJ Asghar wrote: > >> So this popped up today[1]. This seems like something that > should be > >> leveraged in our gates/validations? > > > > I prepared review requests to enable checks on the gates for > > > > * osops-tools-monitoring: > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/ > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/> > > * osops-tools-generic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/ > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/> > > > > Christian. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators