Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecate EL6?

[Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden]

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 06:34:01PM +0100, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
> On 8 August 2016 at 15:41, Ohad Levy  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Eric D Helms  wrote:
> >
> >> This thread has seen a revival with many points being made on both sides.
> >> However, things have gone cold for nearly a week now and there are
> >> processes and decisions that hinge on the outcome with respect to users and
> >> developers alike. Are we to assume that what has been done is done and this
> >> discussion is moot? Some finality in this matter would be greatly
> >> appreciated to either continue forward with EL6 builds and preparing all of
> >> our ecosystem users for the 1.14 release to migrate or beginning now to
> >> tell users they are SOL and to start testing transition and migration while
> >> we work out and test the best way for them to do so.
> >>
> >
> > I strongly prefer deprecating EL6 with Foreman 1.14, and would ask to
> > revert the el6 changes in nighties.
> >
> 
> I did ask previously to confirm if the cons to keeping EL6 were still as
> simple as suggested on May 10th. I've heard no contradiction of that, so my
> preference also goes to reverting the change in the nightlies.

Supporting EL6 is little effort for the projects I'm involved so I have
no objections to formally deprecating EL6 on 1.13 and dropping support
in 1.14.

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Greg Sutcliffe]

On 8 August 2016 at 15:41, Ohad Levy  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Eric D Helms  wrote:
>
>> This thread has seen a revival with many points being made on both sides.
>> However, things have gone cold for nearly a week now and there are
>> processes and decisions that hinge on the outcome with respect to users and
>> developers alike. Are we to assume that what has been done is done and this
>> discussion is moot? Some finality in this matter would be greatly
>> appreciated to either continue forward with EL6 builds and preparing all of
>> our ecosystem users for the 1.14 release to migrate or beginning now to
>> tell users they are SOL and to start testing transition and migration while
>> we work out and test the best way for them to do so.
>>
>
> I strongly prefer deprecating EL6 with Foreman 1.14, and would ask to
> revert the el6 changes in nighties.
>

I did ask previously to confirm if the cons to keeping EL6 were still as
simple as suggested on May 10th. I've heard no contradiction of that, so my
preference also goes to reverting the change in the nightlies.

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Ohad Levy]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Eric D Helms  wrote:

> This thread has seen a revival with many points being made on both sides.
> However, things have gone cold for nearly a week now and there are
> processes and decisions that hinge on the outcome with respect to users and
> developers alike. Are we to assume that what has been done is done and this
> discussion is moot? Some finality in this matter would be greatly
> appreciated to either continue forward with EL6 builds and preparing all of
> our ecosystem users for the 1.14 release to migrate or beginning now to
> tell users they are SOL and to start testing transition and migration while
> we work out and test the best way for them to do so.
>

I strongly prefer deprecating EL6 with Foreman 1.14, and would ask to
revert the el6 changes in nighties.

Ohad

>
>
> Eric
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Justin Sherrill 
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/29/2016 05:29 AM, Michael Moll wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:35:36AM +0100, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
>> >> I have at least one feature planned for smart-proxy that requires
>> >> dependencies not available on 1.8.7 (at all). At this point converting
>> >> the smart-proxy to use SCL isn’t worth it, and it would be great not
>> >> to have an additional 3-months wait.
>> >
>> > That would be exactly my point also, as I said in my mail for the
>> > original discussion back then: If the support for EL6 is prolonged, the
>> > proxy (and maybe even the installer) should really get into SCL, which
>> > is definitely too much work for just 3 or 6 months. If EL6 support is
>> > really needed, somebody[tm] needs to do that work, but then we could
>> > also extend the lifespan not only some months, but probably some years.
>> >
>> > As I don't use RH based distro at the moment, I can't really say how
>> > widespread the use of EL6 for Foreman really is...
>>
>> It seems surprisingly prevalent in katello users (maybe 30% from my
>> instances helping users).
>>
>> Since there wasn't a clear statement of when the deprecation was going
>> to occur (the original email thread was left without a conclusion), and
>> the release notes for 1.11 did not say which future release would remove
>> el6 support (until it was recently updated) I would vote to keep it for
>> 1.13 and make it very clear to both users and devs.   It would allow us
>> (and users on el6) to more thoroughly test our backup and restore
>> procedures across all plugins.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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
> Ph.D. Student - North Carolina State University
>
> --
> 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] Deprecate EL6?

[Eric D Helms]

This thread has seen a revival with many points being made on both sides.
However, things have gone cold for nearly a week now and there are
processes and decisions that hinge on the outcome with respect to users and
developers alike. Are we to assume that what has been done is done and this
discussion is moot? Some finality in this matter would be greatly
appreciated to either continue forward with EL6 builds and preparing all of
our ecosystem users for the 1.14 release to migrate or beginning now to
tell users they are SOL and to start testing transition and migration while
we work out and test the best way for them to do so.


Eric

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Justin Sherrill  wrote:

> On 07/29/2016 05:29 AM, Michael Moll wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:35:36AM +0100, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
> >> I have at least one feature planned for smart-proxy that requires
> >> dependencies not available on 1.8.7 (at all). At this point converting
> >> the smart-proxy to use SCL isn’t worth it, and it would be great not
> >> to have an additional 3-months wait.
> >
> > That would be exactly my point also, as I said in my mail for the
> > original discussion back then: If the support for EL6 is prolonged, the
> > proxy (and maybe even the installer) should really get into SCL, which
> > is definitely too much work for just 3 or 6 months. If EL6 support is
> > really needed, somebody[tm] needs to do that work, but then we could
> > also extend the lifespan not only some months, but probably some years.
> >
> > As I don't use RH based distro at the moment, I can't really say how
> > widespread the use of EL6 for Foreman really is...
>
> It seems surprisingly prevalent in katello users (maybe 30% from my
> instances helping users).
>
> Since there wasn't a clear statement of when the deprecation was going
> to occur (the original email thread was left without a conclusion), and
> the release notes for 1.11 did not say which future release would remove
> el6 support (until it was recently updated) I would vote to keep it for
> 1.13 and make it very clear to both users and devs.   It would allow us
> (and users on el6) to more thoroughly test our backup and restore
> procedures across all plugins.
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards
> >
>
> --
> 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
Ph.D. Student - North Carolina State University

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Justin Sherrill]

On 07/29/2016 05:29 AM, Michael Moll wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:35:36AM +0100, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
>> I have at least one feature planned for smart-proxy that requires
>> dependencies not available on 1.8.7 (at all). At this point converting
>> the smart-proxy to use SCL isn’t worth it, and it would be great not
>> to have an additional 3-months wait.
> 
> That would be exactly my point also, as I said in my mail for the
> original discussion back then: If the support for EL6 is prolonged, the
> proxy (and maybe even the installer) should really get into SCL, which
> is definitely too much work for just 3 or 6 months. If EL6 support is
> really needed, somebody[tm] needs to do that work, but then we could
> also extend the lifespan not only some months, but probably some years.
> 
> As I don't use RH based distro at the moment, I can't really say how
> widespread the use of EL6 for Foreman really is...

It seems surprisingly prevalent in katello users (maybe 30% from my
instances helping users).

Since there wasn't a clear statement of when the deprecation was going
to occur (the original email thread was left without a conclusion), and
the release notes for 1.11 did not say which future release would remove
el6 support (until it was recently updated) I would vote to keep it for
1.13 and make it very clear to both users and devs.   It would allow us
(and users on el6) to more thoroughly test our backup and restore
procedures across all plugins.



> 
> Regards
> 

-- 
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: Re: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecate EL6?

[Daniel Lobato Garcia]

On 07/29, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
> > The migration would be complicated for users who run TFTP/DHCP/DNS
> > (etc..) on the same host.
>
> Why would it be complicated? Backup config files, restore them on the
> new machine and run migrations.

Sorry, I meant 'more complicated'. It's more complicated to
migrate all the config files when we don't provide a simple script like we
do for the Foreman database.

>
> -d
>
> --
> 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.

--
Daniel Lobato Garcia

@dLobatog
blog.daniellobato.me
daniellobato.me

GPG: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get=0x7A92D6DD38D6DE30
Keybase: https://keybase.io/elobato

-- 
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: PGP signature

Re: Re: [foreman-dev] Deprecate EL6?

[Eric D Helms]

Katello provides full backup and restore scripts for users. We've not
tested it for this specific case and or migrating a large infrastructure.
Nor have we given guidance which are my bigger concerns.

On Jul 29, 2016 6:57 AM, "Daniel Lobato Garcia"  wrote:

> On 07/29, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> > > > That said, I believe security updates are the most important to them
> so
> > > > you could consider supporting the last release on EL6 a bit longer. I
> > > > don't know how much of a time/effort difference that makes compared
> to
> > > > supporting it longer on the newest release.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I can certainly try for a bit longer if it's useful to people,
> > > though help doing the backports may be appreciated when we get there.
> >
> > I think we are discussing two things which are different.
> >
> > Maintaining EL6 releases is one thing and we are not dropping that at
> > all - we are sticking with our commitment. For those who need even
> > longer support cycle there are 3rd party vendors like Red Hat.
> >
> > On the other hand, what Dominic suggest is dropping EL6 from the next
> > release. That's a different story. And that's not that hot topic from
> > user perspective, but plugins should be taken into consideration for
> > sure.
> >
> > For discovery, I can say I am fine with dropping EL6 from the next
> > release, but I can understand this is huge move and if there is a chance
> > to postpone this one another release let's just do it. But I would like
> > to see immediate planning and actions in order to achieve smooth exit
> > phase.
> >
> > Can we identify first what needs to be done in order to drop EL6? Also
> > can we do something for users to smoother the experience? Some web
> > banners, blog posts? Perhaps a RFC can help here so it's recorded and
> > visible for others.
>
> https://www.theforeman.org/manuals/1.12/#5.5Backup,RecoveryandMigration
> contains all that's needed to move your Foreman instance somewhere else,
> that one is not an issue IMO.
>
> The migration would be complicated for users who run TFTP/DHCP/DNS
> (etc..) on the same host. Then again they can just keep the proxy
> running there and hook the new Foreman (1.13 in el7) to the old el6 box.
>
> Same thing applies to Katello I think. I'm not sure about any traces
> that katello leaves on the Foreman box but if users can keep their el6
> proxy with Pulp, that's not a major issue. They can upgrade Foreman but
> keep the old el6 proxy with Pulp, and not upgrade the proxy. I am not
> aware of any way of migrating candlepin information to another box (or
> connecting to a capsule just for candlepin) so pointers to that would be
> very helpful.
>
> I don't know much about migrating tasks (Dynflow), so any guides on that
> would help too.
>
> tl;dr: Migrating Foreman itself should be a piece of cake. For services
> that are not that easy to migrate such as Pulp, TFTP, DHCP, DNS, users
> can keep their el6 proxies and those ought to be compatible with Foreman
> 1.13.
>
> --
> Daniel Lobato Garcia
>
> @dLobatog
> blog.daniellobato.me
> daniellobato.me
>
> GPG: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get=0x7A92D6DD38D6DE30
> Keybase: https://keybase.io/elobato
>
> --
> 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] Deprecate EL6?

[Michael Moll]

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:35:36AM +0100, Dmitri Dolguikh wrote:
> I have at least one feature planned for smart-proxy that requires
> dependencies not available on 1.8.7 (at all). At this point converting
> the smart-proxy to use SCL isn’t worth it, and it would be great not
> to have an additional 3-months wait.

That would be exactly my point also, as I said in my mail for the
original discussion back then: If the support for EL6 is prolonged, the
proxy (and maybe even the installer) should really get into SCL, which
is definitely too much work for just 3 or 6 months. If EL6 support is
really needed, somebody[tm] needs to do that work, but then we could
also extend the lifespan not only some months, but probably some years.

As I don't use RH based distro at the moment, I can't really say how
widespread the use of EL6 for Foreman really is...

Regards
-- 
Michael Moll

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Lukas Zapletal]

> > That said, I believe security updates are the most important to them so
> > you could consider supporting the last release on EL6 a bit longer. I
> > don't know how much of a time/effort difference that makes compared to
> > supporting it longer on the newest release.
> 
> Yeah, I can certainly try for a bit longer if it's useful to people,
> though help doing the backports may be appreciated when we get there.

I think we are discussing two things which are different.

Maintaining EL6 releases is one thing and we are not dropping that at
all - we are sticking with our commitment. For those who need even
longer support cycle there are 3rd party vendors like Red Hat.

On the other hand, what Dominic suggest is dropping EL6 from the next
release. That's a different story. And that's not that hot topic from
user perspective, but plugins should be taken into consideration for
sure.

For discovery, I can say I am fine with dropping EL6 from the next
release, but I can understand this is huge move and if there is a chance
to postpone this one another release let's just do it. But I would like
to see immediate planning and actions in order to achieve smooth exit
phase.

Can we identify first what needs to be done in order to drop EL6? Also
can we do something for users to smoother the experience? Some web
banners, blog posts? Perhaps a RFC can help here so it's recorded and
visible for others.

-- 
Later,
 Lukas #lzap Zapletal

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Dmitri Dolguikh]

I’d like to see development of new features stopped on EL6:
 - no more random build breakages due to dependencies not supporting
1.8.7 and/or 1.9.3
 - older releases are still available for those who prefer to stay on EL6
 - Backup/restore procedures are documented, support for config file
migrations in smart-proxy has been available for quite awhile now

I have at least one feature planned for smart-proxy that requires
dependencies not available on 1.8.7 (at all). At this point converting
the smart-proxy to use SCL isn’t worth it, and it would be great not
to have an additional 3-months wait.

-d

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Marek Hulán  wrote:
> On Thursday 28 of July 2016 16:34:30 Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
>> So I had a read back through the thread, and drew a few conclusions. The
>> history seems to be:
>>
>> * The thread was opened ~10 weeks ago, and went quiet ~6 weeks ago
>> * At that time, there were 5 upvotes (Dominic, Daniel, Ewoud, Michael,
>> Duncan), 1 downvote (BK), and 1 unsure (Ohad, who said he had "mixed
>> feelings). Others commented but did not express a preference.
>> * We then jump forward to a few days ago, with all the discussion that's
>> happened since.
>>
>> It's hard to deny that it looked OK to go ahead with, as of 3 days ago;
>> 5-to-1 is something we wouldn't normally challenge, and 6 weeks is plenty
>> of time to speak up about concerns.
>>
>> However, I do take issue with comparing it to the previous OS deprecations,
>> which by-and-large have been Debian/Ubuntu deprecations. These (a) don't
>> impact as large a part of the community, (b) have a shorter shelf-life than
>> EL (implying users are more comfortable with upgrading), and (c) have a
>> simpler packaging structure. They're also unlikely to be using any of the
>> RPM-centric plugins we offer, which (of course) will be more affected by
>> dropping EL6 (bear in mind that according to the 2016 survey, some 30% of
>> our community use Katello - that's not insignificant). As such, while I
>> agree no fallout occurred in the past, I think we do have to be more
>> careful this time.
>>
>> More than anything, I think it's the sudden switch from "dead thread" to
>> "it's done" that has raised tempers, rather than the decision itself. I
>> think it would have been reasonable to follow up with a "this seems
>> decided, I'll do it in a few days" type of email - similar to how the
>> branching happens. We have a similar "final call" approach in the RFCs, in
>> case anyone lost sight of the thread in the noise.
>>
>> In short then, we are where we are. I think these concerns *should* have
>> been raised earlier, but now that they *have* been raised, I think they're
>> valid, and we should finish the discussion. As it stands today, we have
>> around 5-to-4 in favour of dropping EL6 in 1.13, but that's not any kind of
>> consensus.
>
> Count me in for EL6 support for at least another release. If there's some
> extra effort needed with which I can help somehow, I'm happy to do so. I
> thought we solved main problems on smart-proxy using puppet API and SCL for
> dynflow plugin.
>
> --
> Marek
>
>>
>> Can we get a (re)statement of the pros/cons from each side, to inform the
>> choices of those on the fence? As of 10th May it seemed that the support of
>> EL6 was only causing minor issues - is that still true? Other than
>> preparation time (which is valid) are there other concerns for dropping it?
>>
>> (PS - More generally, we seem to have an issue with "closing"
>> discussions/RFCs with a firm decision; many discussions die out in this
>> way. Thoughts on how we can improve that are welcome, and I will post my
>> own, but lets start a new thread for that)
>
> --
> 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] Deprecate EL6?

[Marek Hulán]

On Thursday 28 of July 2016 16:34:30 Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
> So I had a read back through the thread, and drew a few conclusions. The
> history seems to be:
> 
> * The thread was opened ~10 weeks ago, and went quiet ~6 weeks ago
> * At that time, there were 5 upvotes (Dominic, Daniel, Ewoud, Michael,
> Duncan), 1 downvote (BK), and 1 unsure (Ohad, who said he had "mixed
> feelings). Others commented but did not express a preference.
> * We then jump forward to a few days ago, with all the discussion that's
> happened since.
> 
> It's hard to deny that it looked OK to go ahead with, as of 3 days ago;
> 5-to-1 is something we wouldn't normally challenge, and 6 weeks is plenty
> of time to speak up about concerns.
> 
> However, I do take issue with comparing it to the previous OS deprecations,
> which by-and-large have been Debian/Ubuntu deprecations. These (a) don't
> impact as large a part of the community, (b) have a shorter shelf-life than
> EL (implying users are more comfortable with upgrading), and (c) have a
> simpler packaging structure. They're also unlikely to be using any of the
> RPM-centric plugins we offer, which (of course) will be more affected by
> dropping EL6 (bear in mind that according to the 2016 survey, some 30% of
> our community use Katello - that's not insignificant). As such, while I
> agree no fallout occurred in the past, I think we do have to be more
> careful this time.
> 
> More than anything, I think it's the sudden switch from "dead thread" to
> "it's done" that has raised tempers, rather than the decision itself. I
> think it would have been reasonable to follow up with a "this seems
> decided, I'll do it in a few days" type of email - similar to how the
> branching happens. We have a similar "final call" approach in the RFCs, in
> case anyone lost sight of the thread in the noise.
> 
> In short then, we are where we are. I think these concerns *should* have
> been raised earlier, but now that they *have* been raised, I think they're
> valid, and we should finish the discussion. As it stands today, we have
> around 5-to-4 in favour of dropping EL6 in 1.13, but that's not any kind of
> consensus.

Count me in for EL6 support for at least another release. If there's some 
extra effort needed with which I can help somehow, I'm happy to do so. I 
thought we solved main problems on smart-proxy using puppet API and SCL for 
dynflow plugin.

--
Marek

> 
> Can we get a (re)statement of the pros/cons from each side, to inform the
> choices of those on the fence? As of 10th May it seemed that the support of
> EL6 was only causing minor issues - is that still true? Other than
> preparation time (which is valid) are there other concerns for dropping it?
> 
> (PS - More generally, we seem to have an issue with "closing"
> discussions/RFCs with a firm decision; many discussions die out in this
> way. Thoughts on how we can improve that are welcome, and I will post my
> own, but lets start a new thread for that)

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Dominic Cleal]

On 28/07/16 13:08, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 06:48:07AM -0400, Stephen Benjamin wrote:
>> 2 users yesterday at the meet-up in DC specifically asked about this, and
>> were rather surprised by the decision. They have some long-running instances
>> of Foreman and they want to have more time to get them off EL6, and 
>> continuing
>> to get updates (esp. security issues) was important for them.  Considering
>> 75%+ of Foreman users run on EL, it's no surprise EL6 still makes up a big
>> part of the user base.
> 
> I believe that at the Nuremburg meetup there were a few users on EL6 as
> well, but they mostly cared about supporting EL6 clients (through
> provisioning) which will be supported for a long time.
> 
> That said, I believe security updates are the most important to them so
> you could consider supporting the last release on EL6 a bit longer. I
> don't know how much of a time/effort difference that makes compared to
> supporting it longer on the newest release.

Yeah, I can certainly try for a bit longer if it's useful to people,
though help doing the backports may be appreciated when we get there.

-- 
Dominic Cleal
domi...@cleal.org

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Ohad Levy]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Dominic Cleal  wrote:

> On 26/07/16 14:17, Ohad Levy wrote:
> > +1 I believe 1.14 is a more suitable candidates. mostly after having a
> > proper backup/restore procedure to migrate foreman, proxy and plugins.
>
> The manual already has a section on backup, recovery and migration. If
> you feel it's incomplete then please help fix it - there's plenty of
> time until this change is released in which to do it.
>
>
Dominic, I'm not saying that dropping EL6 is a bad move(I personally like
that), but based on Eric feedback, it does feel like it has a high impact
on plugins, backup and restore in this section only refers to Foreman core,
and while I understand why you are mostly focused on it, I think we should
not ignore the large plugin ecosystem, further, It will leave plugins
with reduced
testing, and it becomes increasingly difficult to release in sync (e.g.
with foreman core), unless we prepare for that in advance. we currently
have about 5 weeks left until 1.13 is branched, which will most likely put
some features or the release plans in risk.

Ohad

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Dominic Cleal]

On 26/07/16 14:13, Eric D Helms wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Dominic Cleal  > wrote:
> 
> On 10/05/16 10:26, Dominic Cleal wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
> > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release.
> 
> I've stopped nightly EL6 builds now and will remove the yum repos 
> 
> shortly too.
> 
> 
> I would like to ask that we put a hold on this change without some
> further discussion. This comes as a bit of a surprise (at a minimum a
> warning similar to branch warnings would have been nice) given the
> conversation herein where there was equal sides for and against this
> change. I do not consider the line in the release notes sufficient for
> this kind of change given the scale and scope it imposes. The release
> notes also do not indicate which release users should prepare for this
> change, simply that it will be that way in future releases.

The warnings section of the release notes state that EL6 packages will
likely not be provided in 1.13, but I'll update them now to state
clearly that they won't, with pointers to our existing migration
information. This can certainly be expanded with more help if somebody
wishes to write it, and there's plenty of time to do that in.

I don't think I've done anything differently to previous OS deprecations
and removals, which seem to have gone without incident.

-- 
Dominic Cleal
domi...@cleal.org

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Ohad Levy]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Eric D Helms  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Dominic Cleal  wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/16 10:26, Dominic Cleal wrote:
>> > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
>> > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release.
>>
>> I've stopped nightly EL6 builds now and will remove the yum repos
>
> shortly too.
>>
>
> I would like to ask that we put a hold on this change without some further
> discussion. This comes as a bit of a surprise (at a minimum a warning
> similar to branch warnings would have been nice) given the conversation
> herein where there was equal sides for and against this change. I do not
> consider the line in the release notes sufficient for this kind of change
> given the scale and scope it imposes. The release notes also do not
> indicate which release users should prepare for this change, simply that it
> will be that way in future releases. We have given users no major warnings
> nor reiterated this point to allow them to begin considering how to
> transition. We did not provide a transition document for users to consider
> during the deprecation period. From a development stand point, there has
> been no collaboration to coordinate all the various changes that have to be
> made to support this change. I'm afraid we will be doing some of our users
> and developers a disservice due to the feeling of abruptness of this
> without sufficient "loud" warnings and supporting documentation to given
> them time to prepare for migration. I like to believe users prefer to use
> the latest and greatest (and that we should be encouraging the use of) and
> we owe it to them to ensure we provide the smoothest runway possible to get
> them there. I am thinking about the Katello part of the community here as
> well which is a valid aspect of the ecosystem given the user base and how
> we integrate with Foreman core and a variety of plugins.
>
>
+1 I believe 1.14 is a more suitable candidates. mostly after having a
proper backup/restore procedure to migrate foreman, proxy and plugins.

Ohad



>
> Eric
>
>
>> --
>> Dominic Cleal
>> domi...@cleal.org
>>
>> --
>> 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
> Ph.D. Student - North Carolina State University
>
> --
> 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] Deprecate EL6?

[Eric D Helms]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Dominic Cleal  wrote:

> On 10/05/16 10:26, Dominic Cleal wrote:
> > I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
> > the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release.
>
> I've stopped nightly EL6 builds now and will remove the yum repos

shortly too.
>

I would like to ask that we put a hold on this change without some further
discussion. This comes as a bit of a surprise (at a minimum a warning
similar to branch warnings would have been nice) given the conversation
herein where there was equal sides for and against this change. I do not
consider the line in the release notes sufficient for this kind of change
given the scale and scope it imposes. The release notes also do not
indicate which release users should prepare for this change, simply that it
will be that way in future releases. We have given users no major warnings
nor reiterated this point to allow them to begin considering how to
transition. We did not provide a transition document for users to consider
during the deprecation period. From a development stand point, there has
been no collaboration to coordinate all the various changes that have to be
made to support this change. I'm afraid we will be doing some of our users
and developers a disservice due to the feeling of abruptness of this
without sufficient "loud" warnings and supporting documentation to given
them time to prepare for migration. I like to believe users prefer to use
the latest and greatest (and that we should be encouraging the use of) and
we owe it to them to ensure we provide the smoothest runway possible to get
them there. I am thinking about the Katello part of the community here as
well which is a valid aspect of the ecosystem given the user base and how
we integrate with Foreman core and a variety of plugins.


Eric


> --
> Dominic Cleal
> domi...@cleal.org
>
> --
> 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
Ph.D. Student - North Carolina State University

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Dominic Cleal]

On 10/05/16 10:26, Dominic Cleal wrote:
> I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
> the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release.

I've stopped nightly EL6 builds now and will remove the yum repos
shortly too.

-- 
Dominic Cleal
domi...@cleal.org

-- 
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] Deprecate EL6?

[Michael Moll]

Hi,

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:26:42AM +0100, Dominic Cleal wrote:
> I'd like to propose a deprecation of EL6 for Foreman 1.12, so we have
> the option of leaving it out of the 1.13 release. This will be
> documented in the 1.12 release notes.
> 
> This would allow us to start dropping Ruby 1.8.7 support and possibly
> 1.9.3 across the installer and other subprojects, as this is the last OS
> using it. Foreman's had EL7 support since version 1.6.

If EL6 support can not be dropped at this time, it's probably worth to
target SCLing of foreman-proxy and foreman-installer for 1.13, which
should be a much smaller problem now, as the Puppet 4 / AIO changes did
land in both.

Regards
-- 
Michael Moll

-- 
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.