That is pretty awesome and should be a developer experience that is
maintained, but opened to a wider audience. I know a lot of good admins
and dev ops engineers who work primarily on mac or windows in the
enterprise space.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov
On Thursday 21 November 2013 08:41:51 Victor Lowther wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> > Sascha Peilicke (speili...@suse.com) wrote:
> > > I would also wonder why we append
> > > /master to every branch :-) Why not just "release/roxy" ? Or better
> > > "stable/roxy" wh
Sascha Peilicke (speili...@suse.com) wrote:
> On the other hand, we could probably kill some branches across
> repos.
Great idea - very low-hanging fruit ... if we are scared about losing
important stuff for ever, we can always take a backup first.
> This is what I currently have just for the "cr
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> Sascha Peilicke (speili...@suse.com) wrote:
> > I would also wonder why we append
> > /master to every branch :-) Why not just "release/roxy" ? Or better
> > "stable/roxy" which seems like a more common pattern in the git world.
>
> Because th
On Thursday 21 November 2013 09:23:11 Judd Maltin wrote:
> Semver would be just great! 02.00.01 ?
Depends on how you put it. If Crowbar-2.0 is already out there and we're still
fixing it, then it would be something like 2.0.1. If we are very close to
releasing CB2, it's more like 2.0a1. However,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Darrel O'Pry wrote:
>
> vagrant up dev
> vagrant up ubuntu12.10-admin
> vagrant up bare-node1
> vagrant up bare-node2
> vagrant up bare-node3
> vagrant up bare-node4
>
> Which could all be wrapped up in a grunt, make, rake, shell script task...
> There could even
Semver would be just great! 02.00.01 ?
Judd Maltin
1-917-882-1270
I have suffering to learn compassion once and once again.
On Nov 21, 2013 7:34 AM, "Adam Spiers" wrote:
> Sascha Peilicke (speili...@suse.com) wrote:
> > On the other hand, we could probably kill some branches across
> > repos.
>
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> Darrel O'Pry (darrel.o...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > I hear a lot of knee jerk throw everything out and start over
> undertones. I
> > don't that that is a wise idea as it loses history. One of the things I
> > love about git is history. Also be
Chux Uzoeto (chuxuzo...@gmail.com) wrote:
> I am fairly new to crowbar .. Thanks to the team for such a great
> concept ..
Welcome :-)
> My question is:
> -- Is there a wiki somewhere about troubleshooting/debugging steps for a
> deployed crowban admin ?
>
> I mean basic information like:
> --
On Thursday 21 November 2013 11:29:45 Adam Spiers wrote:
> [lots of very good remarks,as usual...]
I agree with Adam that the main repo has to have proper branches for releases.
Once we have that, we can cleanup the confusing directory layout (hey, iit's
only 20 install-chef.sh scripts, nice).
Darrel O'Pry (darrel.o...@gmail.com) wrote:
> The project has come along way since I first started following it a few
> years ago. What is there now is a vast improvement over what I first found
> which were the links to Rob's blog. It has been steady forward
> progress.
Agreed.
> I hear a lot of
Probably, a more permanent solution would be to test for the platform, and
perhaps distribute the requisite init script .. Mind you, suse seems to run
fine with debian style lsb scripts ..
On 21 November 2013 11:43, Chux Uzoeto wrote:
>
> I observed while applying a cinder proposal on ubuntu th
I observed while applying a cinder proposal on ubuntu that it fails due to
the suse specific type of init.d script used to mount the cinder volume ..
the init.d script is /etc/init.d/boot.looplvm ..
I had two choices, grab a copy of /etc/rc.status from an opensuse desktop,
or adapt the script for
Simon Jakesch (simon_jake...@dell.com) wrote:
> I've gone through the entire thread and I am going to make an
> attempt at summarizing this conversation to flush out the most
> burning and critical issues around this discussion. I've summarized
> what I believe the high-level argument to be. Please
Rob Hirschfeld (rob_hirschf...@dell.com) wrote:
> We want to solve those exact problems in CB2 but that creates a huge
> cleanup lift for CB1 that risks CB1 stability.
Sorry - we must have a major disconnect here because I can't
understand this at all. Please can you explain what you mean in more
Rob Hirschfeld (rob_hirschf...@dell.com) wrote:
> How do we address that CB1 and 2 are so different that the docs can't cover
> both? This seems very confusing to me.
It shouldn't be at all confusing - this is precisely why we started
moving the docs into the code repo, so that whichever branch
Hi Rob,
Le mercredi 20 novembre 2013, à 18:24 -0600, rob_hirschf...@dell.com a écrit :
> How do we address that CB1 and 2 are so different that the docs can't cover
> both? This seems very confusing to me.
If you're talking about doc living in git: they'd just live in the right
branch, so no i
17 matches
Mail list logo
