Re: ansible 2.0 on batcave01
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:04:10 +0100 Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 12.2.2016 v 22:29 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > > But it should migrate sometime... 1.9.x isn't going to be supported > > all that much longer, so it should move to the new 2.0 api as soon > > as it can. > > F23 will stay on 1.9.x, isn't it... oh, there is an update filed for > F23. I really hope it did not get into stable. Not yet. The plan was to keep it in testing until all the minor breakage was fixed up (ie, 2.0.x) and things stablized. For epel there's going to be a ansible1.9 compat package (that will live for just 6 months or something). I guess we could also push that to Fedora, but seems like a lot of additional work. > > Would you like me to file a bug somewhere to track that, or it's > > already on the roadmap? > > Not on the roadmap, but I'm putting it there. We will work on that > next sprint (14 days from now). Sounds good. kevin pgpDj3W_VMPfN.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: ansible 2.0 on batcave01
Dne 12.2.2016 v 22:29 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > But it should migrate sometime... 1.9.x isn't going to be supported all > that much longer, so it should move to the new 2.0 api as soon as it > can. F23 will stay on 1.9.x, isn't it... oh, there is an update filed for F23. I really hope it did not get into stable. > Would you like me to file a bug somewhere to track that, or it's > already on the roadmap? Not on the roadmap, but I'm putting it there. We will work on that next sprint (14 days from now). -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: ansible 2.0 on batcave01
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:36:11 +0100 Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Nope. We are calling ansible python methods directly just on copr-be. > And that is different machine, different instance of ansible. Right, so it can migrate in it's own timeframe. ;) But it should migrate sometime... 1.9.x isn't going to be supported all that much longer, so it should move to the new 2.0 api as soon as it can. Would you like me to file a bug somewhere to track that, or it's already on the roadmap? kevin pgp15LfrVMGDs.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: ansible 2.0 on batcave01
Dne 30.1.2016 v 18:40 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > The only other thing related to ansible 2.0 I can think of is that copr > may need to adjust to the new API if it's using that directly, but it > can do that on it's own timeframe. Nope. We are calling ansible python methods directly just on copr-be. And that is different machine, different instance of ansible. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: ansible 2.0 on batcave01
One issue we hit that everyone should be aware of: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/13485 This is an issue with including handlers. They are not currently expanded correctly and never fire. So, if you are running some playbook and expect a handler to fire off, for now you will need to do so manually. Hopefully there will be a fix soon in 2.0.x kevin pgpMQLkKvvpYd.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
ansible 2.0 on batcave01
With Toshio porting our callback plugins last night I have gone ahead and moved batcave01 over to ansible 2.0. I'm sure we will hit some minor issues, but for the most part I think we should be good to go. If you do run into something, please fix it, or report it so we can fix it up. Playbooks should all run fine as normal, some scripts may still need porting. The only other thing related to ansible 2.0 I can think of is that copr may need to adjust to the new API if it's using that directly, but it can do that on it's own timeframe. kevin pgpgxSbjDnl7Z.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
