10:27 a.m.
Hello everyone,
Yesterday we had our first online meeting via Jitsi which went pretty well.
I think that Imre Jonk will write more about it soon, so I won't spoil too
much here.
Recently there was an idea of creating a separate mailing list focused on
DebOps development instead of its general usage. This comes from the fact
that there are two sets of users of this project: some people just want to use
it to manage their infrastructure and focus on their own work, and some are
interested in contributing ideas or code to DebOps itself.
Due to that, I went ahead and created a new mailing list,
'debops-devel(a)lists.debops.org', meant to be used for discussions about DebOps
development. You can view both lists (debops-devel and debops-users) similarly
to how debian-devel and debian-users lists are used in the Debian project.
Interested users can subscribe to the new mailing list via the Postorius web
interface[1]. I plan to use this list to discuss large changes in the
codebase, explain new ideas planned for implementation in the project, discuss
the problems found in IT infrastructure and how we can solve them via DebOps,
and similar topics.
Cheers,
Maciej
[1]: https://lists.debops.org/postorius/lists/debops-devel.lists.debops.org/
11:18 a.m.
We need to update the docs to mention this new list.
--
Nicolas Quiniou-Briand
Messagerie instantanée (Jabber) : nqb(a)azyx.fr
Tél : 06 75 84 56 74
11:56 a.m.
On 16/07/2020 10:27, Maciej Delmanowski wrote:
Due to that, I went ahead and created a new mailing list,
'debops-devel(a)lists.debops.org', meant to be used for discussions about DebOps
development.
Thanks Maciej.
BTW I wonder if there should be another ML focused on sys-admin topics
not strictly related to debops.
I mean something like "debops-supeuser" or "debops-ot" or
"debops-pub"
(or anything that fits better) where user can discuss topics varying
from slightly to almost OT.
Examples:
say I'd like to use incinga but I've never played with it: it may use
this ml for some debops users insight on incinga itself.
The same could happen also for some software that is not yet in debops
like nsd.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea or if we should just default on
debops-users.
Dam
3:59 p.m.
On lip 19, Damiano Venturin wrote:
On 16/07/2020 10:27, Maciej Delmanowski wrote:
> Due to that, I went ahead and created a new mailing list,
> 'debops-devel(a)lists.debops.org', meant to be used for discussions about
DebOps
> development.
BTW I wonder if there should be another ML focused on sys-admin topics
not strictly related to debops.
I mean something like "debops-supeuser" or "debops-ot" or
"debops-pub"
(or anything that fits better) where user can discuss topics varying
from slightly to almost OT.
Examples:
say I'd like to use incinga but I've never played with it: it may use
this ml for some debops users insight on incinga itself.
The same could happen also for some software that is not yet in debops
like nsd.
I'm not sure if this is a good idea or if we should just default on
debops-users.
The general idea is to eventually do everything related to your infrastructure
through DebOps/Ansible one way or another to keep it consistent. So I would
say that the current split between the two mailing lists should be enough.
Newcomers to DebOps can focus on the 'debops-users' mailing list with more
content related to things that are already in the project; something that is
not yet implemented in DebOps can be talked about on the 'debops-devel' list
without distracting the current DebOps users, and eventually implemented in
DebOps.
As for your Icinga example, go ahead and talk about it on debops-users; the
roles are already there and can be used to implement your desired
configuration one way or another. And if you don't know how to implement
something, other users can either help you with implementation using the
current roles, or learn something new about Icinga itself that way.
A role for nsd is not yet available in DebOps, so I would use debops-devel to
discuss its implementation. That way more experienced users can chime in with
solutions or concerns.
Does this split make sense?
Cheers,
Maciej
5:47 p.m.
On 19/07/2020 15:59, Maciej Delmanowski wrote:
As for your Icinga example, go ahead and talk about it on
debops-users; the
roles are already there and can be used to implement your desired
configuration one way or another. And if you don't know how to implement
something, other users can either help you with implementation using the
current roles, or learn something new about Icinga itself that way.
A role for nsd is not yet available in DebOps, so I would use debops-devel to
discuss its implementation. That way more experienced users can chime in with
solutions or concerns.
Does this split make sense?
yep, works for me!
1382
days inactive
1387
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Damiano Venturin -
Maciej Delmanowski -
Nicolas Quiniou-Briand