> Good point, I think we'll be continuing 1.8 as long as Squeeze is
> around. So maybe 1.3 could be the last?
> There's no guarantee people will upgrade when Wheezy is released. In
> $last job I was supporting Squeeze, Lenny, Etch, and even a handful of
> Woody systems. Admittedly asking them to upgrade just the Foreman
> server isn't too bad, but still…
I don't doubt it, been in the same situation myself plenty of times.
I'd always make a distinction though between minimum requirements to
deploy a new version of an application (e.g. Foreman 1.2) and keeping
requirements the same for an existing application (1.1.x). So I'd say
it's reasonable to require a current OS release to deploy a new
> > That said, we need strip back how we load the puppet libraries at some
> > point anyway, right? Should we not fix this and keep our options open?
> > How many people (at a guess) are affected by this today?
> We do, but I'm not sure it's in our priority list for 1.2. Maybe it
> should be.
> I wasn't suggesting that, I'm saying that we will get to it, and right
> now no-one is impacted anyway (as far as I'm aware)
I didn't mean to suggest you did I was just thinking of timescales,
as 1.2 will be out soon, as will Puppet 3.2, so that's when problems may
> It only affects us at the moment as it's beginning to break tests. When
> Foreman 1.2 is released, if we haven't removed Puppet from core, then it
> will affect Puppet 3.2 users on Squeeze.
> Then I propose we drop it from tests. Squeeze can be 1.8.7 as the
> official platform, and 1.9.2 becomes a "best_effort" untested release.
> Replace 1.9.2 with 2.0 once we support it, then we're not increasing the
> test load.
Yep, thanks. It's likely we can add 1.9.2 again if needed later, once
Puppet's removed, though we'll see when it happens.
On 19/04/13 11:20, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
> On 19 April 2013 11:15, Dominic Cleal > wrote:
Red Hat Engineering