Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Modularize deployment scenarios #3498

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

asteflova
Copy link
Member

What changes are you introducing?

This PR takes the contents of doc-Planning_Project/topics/Deployment_Scenarios.adoc from #3456 and introduces it separately from that PR and in modular form.

I'm not making any changes to the content itself, I just created separate module files and tweaked a broken xref here and there.

Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)

Because there is now a plan to include AWS deployment content as a deployment scenario in the Planning guide, I thought it might help to work with modularized deployment scenarios. And considering that multiple writers approved of the structure that #3456 introduces, I think it's reasonably safe to work on AWS in the context of the modularized deployment scenarios already.

Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)

Checklists

  • I am okay with my commits getting squashed when you merge this PR.
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines.

Please cherry-pick my commits into:

  • Foreman 3.13/Katello 4.15
  • Foreman 3.12/Katello 4.14 (Satellite 6.16)
  • Foreman 3.11/Katello 4.13 (orcharhino 6.11 on EL8 only)
  • Foreman 3.10/Katello 4.12
  • Foreman 3.9/Katello 4.11 (Satellite 6.15; orcharhino 6.8/6.9/6.10)
  • Foreman 3.8/Katello 4.10
  • Foreman 3.7/Katello 4.9 (Satellite 6.14)
  • We do not accept PRs for Foreman older than 3.7.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 5, 2024

@asteflova asteflova force-pushed the mod_deploy_scenarios branch from 5a0f6b3 to 549fc81 Compare December 5, 2024 20:53
@asteflova
Copy link
Member Author

@maximiliankolb Would this make your plans with AWS easier? If not, I can just close this again.

@asteflova
Copy link
Member Author

I talked to @maximiliankolb, the conclusion is to drop this PR and focus on #3485 and #3456 separately. There is currently no need for a middle-ground temporary solution presented in this PR.

@asteflova asteflova closed this Dec 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant