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

[Ondrej Prazak]

+1 from me

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Greg Sutcliffe 
wrote:

> On 06/11/17 13:20, Eric D Helms wrote:
> > An important part I missed with the migration and initial proposal is
> > around maintainers. I am proposing that all katello-packagers be given
> > commit access to foreman-packaging as part of this move.
>
> +1 from me, all good candidates :)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [foreman-dev] looking for "create new cloud compute resource provider" how-to

[Ondrej Prazak]

Hi,
I would recommend writing a plugin. There are several plugins upstream that
add a new compute resource provider, so you can take a look at those to
find an inspiration [1]. We have a plugin template [2] that you can clone
and rename, so you do not have to start completely from scratch. We also
have a wiki [3] that contains useful examples for plugin developers.

Hope this helps,
O.

[1] https://projects.theforeman.org/projects/foreman/wiki/List_of_Plugins
[2] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman_plugin_template
[3]
http://projects.theforeman.org/projects/foreman/wiki/How_to_Create_a_Plugin

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Steve Mercurio  wrote:

> If I wanted to learn how to write/add a new cloud compute resource
> provider for Sat6 and upstream it to be included in Sat6 how do I get
> stared doing that.  another member of my team is trying to add a cew
> compute resource provider to CloudForms using FOG but I need to learn how
> to do that in Sat6.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[foreman-dev] Re: HoundCI - annoying?

[dseethal]

I know there hasn't been much activity here for a while but I'm running 
into an issue with HoundCI 
 and 
I'm wondering if there is still some support for moving our linting task 
back into Jenkins? I've been working on simplifying our .eslintrc file to 
simply extend airbnb as well as integrate a prettier plugin for more 
consistent formatting. Before we make these changes we need to figure out 
how to call out the lint errors correctly. HoundCI seems to be giving quite 
a few erroneous flags on prettier errors.


On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 11:18:57 AM UTC-5, Timo Goebel wrote:
>
> Hi devs,
>
> I'm usually not very easily annoyed. What get's me started though 
> eventually is when things don't work properly.
> HoundCI is one of those things.
>
> My main concern is, that I get an e-mail and/or Github notification for 
> every single comment. These can easily be ten or more e-mails. They're not 
> grouped as other reviews.
> In addition, the inline comments are very distracting when reviewing a PR 
> imho. When the issues are fixed, I'd prefer for the comments to be removed.
> When reviewing a PR, I usually don't care about the style issues. I just 
> want to see if there are some problems or if all is fine.
>
> Back in the days, code style was checked by Jenkins. I think, it did a far 
> better job in displaying style issues. With the current Jenkins Github 
> plugin it believe would be easily possible to show style issues as a 
> separate line along with all the other CI checks.
>
> One argument in favor of HoundCI is, that it checks JavaScript style. But 
> I think, that can easily be set up in Jenkins as well by running eslint.
>
> Any comments? How do others feel?
>
> Timo
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [foreman-dev] Infra/Deployment/Platform Roadmap Update

[Greg Sutcliffe]

I'll add that I'm planning to attempt the Redmine upgrades once the
day-to-day tweaking of the Discourse platform calms down a little.
Hoping to get started this week.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[foreman-dev] Infra/Deployment/Platform Roadmap Update

[Eric D Helms]

Time for another bi-weekly (ish) update to the Roadmap. Note that two of
the items on here are complete or nearly complete: moving Katello puppet
modules and migrating Katello packaging to Foreman.

If anyone has any new items that feel need to be added to this list of
items please let me know.


   - Rails 5.X


   - Updates
  - Proposal for building Rails 5.1 SCL sent to list --
  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/foreman-dev/xyo-Q2afuCI
   - Prior
  - Discussion on vendorizing vs. building SCL
  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/foreman-dev/xJyxMx1lXy4
  
  - Notice of current state of core running on 5.1:
  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/foreman-dev/kCMCCNZUN4w
  


   - need rh-ror50 or custom built SCL


   - consider whether we introduce a new SCL (e.g. tfm-ruby23) to separate
  RPMs built against old SCL vs. new


   - comment mmoll: We would need to upgrade Ruby (to 2.4 or 2.5) later,
  but I'd expect Rails 5.0 and even 5.1 to fully work also on Ruby 2.2


   - commend ekohl: if package names remained equal then it would simplify
  the installer/docs


   - should we jump to 5.1.latest and build the SCL instead? rh-ror50 is
  the last Rails SCL from RHSCL team


   - comment mmoll: with a little help from core and plugin devs, a move to
  Rails 5.1 for 1.17 feels achievable.


   - dlobatog: +1 - introducing the SCL to retire it quite soon will be a
  pain for upgrades and 5.1 for 1.17 doesn't seem that far off.


   - Jenkins Migration


   - Updates
  - None
   - Action Items
  - Migrate Jenkins master to EL7


   - add https interface to Jenkins
   - Completed
  - Jenkins now has HTTPS interface: https://ci.theforeman.org/
  - redirect from HTTP needs adding


   - Jenkins Job Updates


   - Updates
  - Foreman plugins nightly release pipeline created and has replaced
  former Foreman plugins release jobs
  - Katello nightly release pipeline created and has replaced former
  Katello release jobs
   - Action Items
  - Migrate jobs to pipelines


   - What is the benefit for this effort?


   - modern approach, more secure, provides more efficient jobs, jobs that
  are protected against crashes and restarts


   - Move all jobs into JJB


   - Update JJB code location within git for discoverability


   - Update jobs to run tests with all plugins installed


   - Update hammer core tests to run tests also for the major plugins (at
  least foreman and katello)


   - Add job for running hammer integration tests against live
  foreman/katello
   - Completed
  - Foreman nightly release pipeline created and has replaced former
  Foreman nightly jobs


   - Running Container Stack


   - Updates
  - No updates
   - Prior
  - address Github issues created from initial merge


   - remove current hacks in deployment


   - build up test suite for verifying container stack


   - add Jenkins job to build containers nightly


   - find way to continuously test container deployment


   - Merging katello-packaging to foreman-packaging


   - Updates
  - Nearly all Katello packages have been migrated to foreman-packaging
  (1 PR left)
  - katello-packaging has been deprecated for all but Katello 3.5 and
  below


   - Release automation


   - Updates
  - No updates
   - Action Items
  - Using tool_belt & foreman_release to do the
  cherry_picking/tagging/building/signing automatically


   - Update http://projects.theforeman.org/projects/foreman/wiki/
  Release_Process to document how it should work


   - Moving Katello puppet modules to foreman (COMPLETE)


   - Updates
  - All modules have been migrated to Foreman github organization
  - modulesync in foreman has been updated
  - Katello's fork for modulesync has been deprecated


   - Merging katello and foreman installers


   - Updates
  - No updates
   - Action Items
  - Move all checks/hooks


   - Add katello modules


   - Move bin/{foreman-proxy-certs-generate,katello-certs-check}


   - Migrate scenarios


   - Sort out the packaging


   - Add deprecation notices to katello-installer / wipe master branch


   - Updated yum repository structure


   - Updates
  - No updates
   - Action Items
  - Email thread discussing re-structure of repositories


   - agree on layout


   - re-factor mash scripts for new deployment


   - re-factor sync scripts to yum/deb repositories


   - update foreman release RPM for new repositories


   - Move package building from Koji to Copr


   - Updates
  - No updates
   - Action Items
  - Phase 1: Submit builds in paralel - only rubygems and nodejs


   - Phase 2: Submit builds in paralel - foreman-core packages


   - Phase 3: Migrate to Copr


   - Multi-server service deploym

[foreman-dev] looking for "create new cloud compute resource provider" how-to

[Steve Mercurio]

If I wanted to learn how to write/add a new cloud compute resource provider 
for Sat6 and upstream it to be included in Sat6 how do I get stared doing 
that.  another member of my team is trying to add a cew compute resource 
provider to CloudForms using FOG but I need to learn how to do that in Sat6.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [foreman-dev] PrPRocessor not working correctly

[Eric D Helms]

I think I might be seeing some git push operations not kicking of PR
testing.

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Greg Sutcliffe 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> PrProcessor appears to have some issues - at the moment it's not
> applying labels correctly etc. See [1] for an example, labels applied
> manually, no mention of commit message, etc.
>
> Eric has made some changes which we think will help, but if you see
> other weirdness, please report it here so we can collate a list of
> things to watch / investigate.
>
> Greg
>
> [1] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/4980
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Eric D. Helms
Red Hat Engineering

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Draft v2 - Re: [foreman-dev] Propsing a move from Google Groups to Discourse

[Greg Sutcliffe]

And this is what happens when you edit drafts as new messages. You don't need 
fancy software to break threading, just a silly mistake will do :)
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Draft v2 - Re: [foreman-dev] Propsing a move from Google Groups to Discourse

[Greg Sutcliffe]

On 03/11/17 18:29, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> Greg, I absolutely understand the motivation,

Good. However, we're not the only two people on this list, and
over-communication is key to reducing misunderstanding in remote
relationships. You know me pretty well, but others do not, so I lay my
position out clearly to benefit them.

> Do not put me into position of blind and angry dev who can't accept
> something different or new.

I have not said that. I praised your first email as a model of rational
debate, proposing a alternative route with clear arguments. Following a
deeper dive into the pros & cons of each solution, you now appear to be
getting defensive. Let's not derail a productive discussion.

> every two years amount
> of programmers doubles. That is a crazy amount of newcomers. But these
> new people are not idiots and some technical level is required even
> for soft roles in our community. 

Sure, they need some technical knowledge. They need to know Git & have a
GitHub account, probably a Redmine account, maybe they contributed on
Transifex, maybe they even set up a development environment (non-trivial
for sure). There's probably more, and thats before we consider plugins.
Even adding to our calendar needs you to use GitHub.

I don't think a requirement to join a mailing list proves any *further*
knowledge on their part. In other words, some barriers to entry serve a
purpose, but where we can remove them, we should. To do otherwise means
we lose potential contributors.

We should also be open to ways to help educate people with the knowledge
needed to participate - I get the feeling you expect people to
self-educate *before* they come to us, but my *own* history in this
community started with a completely innocent email to Ohad about how to
test something. We should be open to tooling that makes such teaching
easier.

> And we can make lists approachable very much like forums.

No, I don't think we can. We've been over this in the preceeding emails.
We can give an archive a shiny GUI, but fundamentally they have a
different feature set, and a different target user group. Your position
on Discourse is clear, and recorded here for all to see. If enough
people agree with you, it won't happen.

Greg


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Greg Sutcliffe]

Update on threading...

On 06/11/17 11:43, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
> Thanks for the testing help, Martin.
> 
> * 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 sure why, it may be because I tuned
> the account settings. I'll keep testing this

>From the testing Martin did, and Ewoud supplying the headers he got
without participating, we were able to track down what we think is
happening [1].

We're trying out a hacky patch to fix it, and in a 2-email test I just
tried, it looks like it's working (at least, they were threaded when the
same test yesterday was not). More testing required please :)

I've also opened this upstream to discuss, we'll see what they say.
Discussion and patch at [2] if you want to follow along.

Greg

[1] https://pastebin.com/u0cDzWbW
[2]
https://meta.discourse.org/t/threading-for-email-only-topics-seems-broken/73523

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Greg Sutcliffe]

On 06/11/17 13:20, Eric D Helms wrote:
> An important part I missed with the migration and initial proposal is
> around maintainers. I am proposing that all katello-packagers be given
> commit access to foreman-packaging as part of this move. 

+1 from me, all good candidates :)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[foreman-dev] Jenkins Foreman, Plugins and Katello Pipelines have Moved

[Eric D Helms]

The Katello (and Foreman for that matter [1]) Pipeline that normally was a
tab at the top of the Jenkins page has been deprecated (and will be removed
today) in favor of a new pipeline built on Jenkins pipelines [2]. Jenkins
pipelines provide a cleaner way to write the pipeline, as well as a nice
view of a run via the Blue Ocean viewpoint [3].

You can now find the katello and foreman nightly pipelines on the Release
Jobs page view [4] or filter for Katello via the Katello view page [5]. If
you have any questions about the new job or new view please let me know
I'll answer or do a brief walkthrough.

Next up are plans to bring the Debian side of the foreman release pipeline
in sync with the RPM side.

Also worth noting is that the same treatment as been applied to Foreman
plugins release [6].


[1] http://ci.theforeman.org/job/foreman-nightly-release
[2] http://ci.theforeman.org/job/katello-nightly-release
[3]
http://ci.theforeman.org/blue/organizations/jenkins/katello-nightly-release/detail/katello-nightly-release/46/pipeline
[4] http://ci.theforeman.org/view/Release%20jobs/
[5] http://ci.theforeman.org/view/Katello/
[6] http://ci.theforeman.org/job/foreman-plugins-release/

-- 
Eric D. Helms
Red Hat Engineering

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[foreman-dev] PrPRocessor not working correctly

[Greg Sutcliffe]

Hi all,

PrProcessor appears to have some issues - at the moment it's not
applying labels correctly etc. See [1] for an example, labels applied
manually, no mention of commit message, etc.

Eric has made some changes which we think will help, but if you see
other weirdness, please report it here so we can collate a list of
things to watch / investigate.

Greg

[1] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/4980

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden]

+1

On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 08:20:26AM -0500, Eric D Helms wrote:

An important part I missed with the migration and initial proposal is
around maintainers. I am proposing that all katello-packagers be given
commit access to foreman-packaging as part of this move. All developers in
this group have shown to be solid participants in packaging, the ability to
build and maintain packages and understand the process. Those devs are:

* Evgeni
* Justin
* Stephen
* John

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Eric D Helms  wrote:


I should also note, any currently open PRs against katello-packaging will
have to be re-opened against foreman-packaging. I will ping each PR
individually and eventually close each if there is no action taken.


Eric

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Eric D Helms 
wrote:


Per the previous plan proposal, for which no objections were raised, I
have started this migration process. There are a number of grouped PRs open
to foreman-packaging [1] to move the various packages into a `katello/`
sub-directory for now. There is a large PR open to katello-packaging to
inevitably remove and deprecate the repository (except for Katello 3.5 and
below) [2].


[1] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pulls
[2] https://github.com/Katello/katello-packaging/pull/575


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[foreman-dev] Forklift now requires Ansible >= 2.4

[Andrew Kofink]

Hello,

Forklift  [1] now requires at least
Ansible 2.4 as of this PR 
[2]. It should be available from the extras repository in EL7.

[1] https://github.com/theforeman/forklift
[2] https://github.com/theforeman/forklift/pull/554

Andrew

-- 
Andrew Kofink
akof...@redhat.com
IRC: akofink
Software Engineer
Red Hat Satellite

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Eric D Helms]

An important part I missed with the migration and initial proposal is
around maintainers. I am proposing that all katello-packagers be given
commit access to foreman-packaging as part of this move. All developers in
this group have shown to be solid participants in packaging, the ability to
build and maintain packages and understand the process. Those devs are:

 * Evgeni
 * Justin
 * Stephen
 * John

On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Eric D Helms  wrote:

> I should also note, any currently open PRs against katello-packaging will
> have to be re-opened against foreman-packaging. I will ping each PR
> individually and eventually close each if there is no action taken.
>
>
> Eric
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Eric D Helms 
> wrote:
>
>> Per the previous plan proposal, for which no objections were raised, I
>> have started this migration process. There are a number of grouped PRs open
>> to foreman-packaging [1] to move the various packages into a `katello/`
>> sub-directory for now. There is a large PR open to katello-packaging to
>> inevitably remove and deprecate the repository (except for Katello 3.5 and
>> below) [2].
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-packaging/pulls
>> [2] https://github.com/Katello/katello-packaging/pull/575
>>
>> --
>> Eric D. Helms
>> Red Hat Engineering
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Eric D. Helms
> Red Hat Engineering
>



-- 
Eric D. Helms
Red Hat Engineering

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Greg Sutcliffe]

Thanks for the testing help, Martin.

* 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 sure why, it may be because I tuned
the account settings. I'll keep testing this

I'm seeing this too, and it appears to be specific to the very first
email that starts a thread - the rest are threaded underneath. I suspect
some interaction with the Sent folder and also BCC-to-myself which I use
quite liberally at the moment. I don't see this in my GitHub folder (see
my other email for the relevance) but that's probably because we don't
start PRs by email...

>  - it took about 15 min since I sent mail to the time I received it
from the list (not sure what are the reaction times on the list today
but this won't improve it)

There's a 10 minute poll time on the incoming mail inbox, so that's
likely the source of the delay.

>  - mails from Discourse take too much visual space - the footer saying
how to unsubscribe, reply or visit the topic  is included in each message.

Agreed, these are all templates that can be altered. I'll leave it for
now so others can see the defaults, and if we go ahead we can alter to
suit our tastes. All such styling will need sorting before any migration
can happen.

>  - "likes" are only indicated in forum notifications but not in
emails. If you send '+1' to the list the like is added but no message is
sent to the users (just the notification)

That's true - since Likes are intended to specifically to *not* clutter
the topic with just agreements, the post isn't recorded. I'll open a
discussion upstream about it (maybe we can get a setting for that) but
for now, it's one extra character to send "+ 1" as a workaround (I just
tried that).

Greg

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Greg Sutcliffe]

Some updates from the weekend testing:

* Inbound email should work properly now (community-t...@theforeman.org
to start a topic)

* A few people have brought up threading - I'll take this upstream once
we've isolated the issue (see reply to Martin). It's actually using a
fork of the GitHub email parser, hence why it looks very similar to
those threads.

* I've enabled tags and (for now) everyone can create tags for posts.
I'm not sure we'll use these long term, but lets try it out. Tags can be
made into something you're notified on in your personal settings.

* I've added a bunch of groups:
  * katello
  * core
  * ui
  * packaging
  * infra

These are self-select (you can join them from the Groups link in the
hamburger menu) with the exception of infra (which is request-to-join,
just for testing that function) and notify them with @group in posts.
Feel fee to try it out.

Neil, Eric, thanks for the positive vibes. There are indeed costs to
this transition but I hope we can conclude that it's worth it. In case
anyone is interested, I found some notes from another group who did
exactly this, and were pleased with the result:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/opendatakit/gG6D4Gfwh44/discussion

Several people have now said we need more traffic. I'd like to ask if
there's a subgroup that would be prepared to use Discourse as a primary
communication method for a while in order to generate this? My
suggestion would be the infra team - which is mainly myself, Ewoud, Eric
and Michael. It won't be the largest amount of traffic, but at least it
would be some. Thoughts?

Greg

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

[Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden]

My views do align with Martin here: email does feel like a second class 
citizen. Sending email does work properly (likely because they could 
just use the github parser gem) but what it sends out is ... barely 
enough.


On the other hand (and this has been pointed out by other people), it 
might be much better for users. Given that foreman-dev is not a very 
high activity mailing list (which I like, good signal/noise ratio) I 
think it can be a good trade-off for better user interaction. While we 
could consider splitting into a discourse for -users and a mailing list 
for -dev, IMHO the downsides of that a much bigger than the upsides.


Right now we have done an experiment and with these initial findings I 
think we can approach the Discourse community to ask them what their 
views are. Perhaps we can work together to improve it (yay open source).


To state what's perhaps obvious: we're never going to find a perfect 
solution that makes everybody happy. We should strive to find a local 
maximum that makes most people happy / the least people unhappy. For 
-dev we can ask the devs since that's a pretty consistent group and we 
know most. That's not true for -users since they might be unhappy now 
but not tell us. I'm willing to trust others that it's the better 
choice even if I see some downsides for me personally.


On Sun, Nov 05, 2017 at 07:51:45PM +0100, Martin Bačovský wrote:

For monitoring of what is going on on the foreman-dev/users I prefer to
consume it as a mailing list. It is lightweight and efficient and fits well
to my mail-centric workflow. I understand the benefits of the forum so I
gave Discourse a try to see how it works and if its mailing-list mode
promises smooth transition.

Things I like:
- searching during new post compose
- existence of "groups"
- likes (even work when sent via mail)
- rich-text messages, syntax highlighting, markdown
- easy to share links to individual posts

Things I didn't like (I guess some are likely interference with the Gmail
client and some can be tuned up):
- 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 sure why, it may be because I tuned the
account settings. I'll keep testing this
- it took about 15 min since I sent mail to the time I received it from
the list (not sure what are the reaction times on the list today but this
won't improve it)
- mails from Discourse take too much visual space - the footer saying how
to unsubscribe, reply or visit the topic  is included in each message.
First post should be enough. There is also extra username with avatar and
forum role next to User name in the From field. Is this configurable?
- "likes" are only indicated in forum notifications but not in emails. If
you send '+1' to the list the like is added but no message is sent to the
users (just the notification)

So far for me it is difficult to follow the Discourse discussion using just
Gmail. For further testing I'd like to see more traffic in the Testing
area. I'd also appreciate experience with mailing-list mode testing form
others.

M.



On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Lukas Zapletal  wrote:


Greg, I absolutely understand the motivation, every two years amount
of programmers doubles. That is a crazy amount of newcomers. But these
new people are not idiots and some technical level is required even
for soft roles in our community. And we can make lists approachable
very much like forums.

Do not put me into position of blind and angry dev who can't accept
something different or new. I understand all contexts and I say
Discourse is an overkill that will bother me and possibly others. God
I wish Google Groups are gone, but not for this.

> * do nothing

Honestly, yeah.

> * switch mailing list for minimal improvement

s/minimal/reasonable/

> * switch to a forum, big upheaval but potential big payoff

Sure, because there are no downsides.

It's not about a list standard e-mail headers. The forum has different
workflow and features and there will be new features as well while
mailing list will stay the same. This will screw my inbox. This will
but a wall between e-mail users and web forum users. This is what's
this all about. And I think we don't need to go that direction.

LZ

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Greg Sutcliffe 
wrote:
> One more thought occurred to me while I was out on the nursery pickup,
so I'll drop here before I bow out for the weekend.
>
> Lukas, I think part of our disagreement is our different goals. As I
highlighted in the last mail, users behave differently to devs. These days
I consider myself more user than dev (when did I last contribute code), so
I have a different world view.
>
> You want to protect a tried and trusted workflow, likely used by many
here - that's fine. My job is to promote and develop the user community, so
I see room for improvement.
>
> Here's the catch though... Our future devs, as a com