-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 144
Public Core Meeting Meeting - March 2017 #156
Comments
Discuss extending the module "shipit" workflow to non-modules, such as:
Migrated from #150 (comment) Update 12 Jan 2017 Meeting
Update 9th Feb 2017 Meeting
Feb 21 Meeting
Mar 2 Meeting
Mar 14
2017-03-23 Rolled over to #159 (comment) |
From luto: ansible/ansible#19297 Fix for wildcards inside of a path for fileglob lookup (ie: Migrated from #150 (comment)
rolled over to #159 (comment) |
Migrated from #150 (comment)
|
From rfleschenberg versioned docs Migrated from #150 (comment) Summarizing previous discussion
Mar 2: gundalow will update etherpad based on comments from meeting. proposal agreed, with Docs people to implement |
Define and document proposals process i.e ansible/proposals#50 was created and 'agreed' to immediately, w/o giving time for community feedback, which is happening now after implementation. Migrated from #150 (comment) We might need to review/update this: 7 Feb Meeting Discussed at the meeting. Many problems with the meta-proposal for creating proposals were discussed. Minimum timeframes were proposed but no agreement could be come to. Proposal documenting the new proposal process was asked for. 14 Feb Meeting
2 Mar Meeting
2017-03-23 Rolled over to #159 (comment) |
Mar 2: No updates this meeting. |
Discussion triggered by: ansible/ansible#20399 (review) We have modules that allow state=list (or state=info), other (sets of) modules have _facts or _stat variants and here the contributor was requested to leave it out and assume that an undefined "state" means returning information, rather than making changes.
Mar 2: Current proposal is ansible/proposals#56. Additional comments can be made there, or a new proposal to supersede that one if necessary. |
The question being: can we get rid of these expanduser/expandvars calls here ? And if so, what's the process to get it done.
Mar 2: The addition of the expand argument in the PR provides backwards compatibility while allowing the issue to be fixed in modules. Once we split out basic.py into separate parts (probably in 2.5) the default behavior can be changed. |
Want to update the metadata format prior to 2.3 to get rid of some warts that have been identified post-implementation. (Toshio)
Mar 2: Already decided in previous meeting. |
ansible/ansible#22330 moved README.md to README.rst Should we also do this for CHANGELOG.md, having headings and TOC would make that a lot more readable
|
How should paths work? Rolled over #159 (comment) |
keywords won |
Ansible 2.3 RC1 has been released for testing |
2017-03-16:
|
|
expand doc fields 2017-03-21: 2017-03-23:
Ticket is open to updates/discussion and once those are done it will be brought back for final approval Rolled over to #159 (comment) |
from open floor, by jtanner:
|
|
|
Ansible 2.3 RC2 has been releases, Please test and report issues via https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/new |
As a comment to the markdown to reStructuredText, it was mentioned in the meeting that all files should be converted. This should not apply to the |
ansible/ansible#16832 might help us get more testers on RCs |
Now that we support docs for many more plugin types, should we require all new plugins of those types to have docs included? Rolled over #159 (comment) |
Ansible 2.3 RC3 has been released https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ansible-devel/X8sYLl-ZuTY We welcome your feedback, after all, we can only fix what we know is broken. If you spot any issues please raise via https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/new Thanks again for your help |
ansible/ansible#9563 (Adding nested dictionary lookups) - Do we want to accept this PR? NOTE: Tests were passing until more strict checks were added recently. Docs will need to be updated to reference the 2.4 release instead of 2.2. Rolled over to #159 (comment) |
Hi all, I'm trying to find how to progress this PR past community review, and it was suggested I add it here as an item to discuss.. ansible/ansible#19872 (my irc handle is productiondba) Rolled over to #159 (comment) |
As we are in April we've rolled over to a new agenda. Any open items have been carried over |
Please leave a comment regarding any agenda item you wish to discuss. If you don't show up for the meeting, your item will be skipped.
If your IRC nick is different from your Github username, leave that as well.
See https://github.com/ansible/community/blob/master/meetings/README.md for the schedule
Once an item has been addressed it should get
strike-though~~strike-though~~
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: