Community: Public Ansible Project Meeting Agenda - Feb-Mar 2018

Created on 6 Feb 2018  Â·  26Comments  Â·  Source: ansible/community

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~~

When creating new agenda ensure core and meeting_agenda labels are set

core meeting_agenda

All 26 comments

Should the include_vars action plugin failing when encountering a file of non-valid file extension be the expected behavior or is this a bug?

There were some disagreements about this in the past and I'd like consensus/clarification on it from the group.

https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/35745

* Discuss plans for 2.6, what our goals are, what that means for committers and the community.

  • Discussion should spill over into how we can work on 2.7 in parallel to take some of the pressure to merge new features off of 2.6.

Announced in meeting:

  • 2.6 is going to be a stability release
  • with a few exceptions, no new features to core owned code
  • refactoring may count as either a bugfix or a feature... we'll evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
  • we'll work on improving/increasing testing
  • Features allowed in community “files’ (plugins, modules, contrib, etc)
  • Community features that need new features in core code will be deferred to 2.7
  • we'll try to focus on fixing existing issues and merging existing PRs rather than seeking out new ones
  • Exceptions so far: We'll treat networking, cloud (amazon, gce, azure, etc), vmware more like community owned code for deciding whether a feature is allowed.
  • managing the git repo during stability still being discussed. Leaning towards branching stable-2.6 early and having PRs to cherry-pick changes to the 2.6 tree.

FortiOS and FortiGate
https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/33591#issuecomment-364775042
Would like feedback on this approach

The proposed approach looks good. We'll look more when the first PR using the new proposal is submitted, Thanks!

Add ability to define filter macros https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/36130

Hoping to join and discuss PR's: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/36372 https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/37001
IRC Nick: Imo

@sivel was looking at a nearly identical PR for the same thing. He'll take charge of working on this and merging them once he's satisfied that they don't cause other breakage.

I am looking for more feedback on https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/36901, @dharmabumstead proposed to do https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/36901#issuecomment-369757086 but I am not convinced this is the direction we want to take the documentation.

People in attendance at today's meeting took a look and made suggestions of how we could compromise over this issue. However, dharmabumstead was not present. We'll need to sync with him in the future. Action items from the meeting:

  • #action: dag to screenshot how trying to put Defaults
    and Choices in the heading causes issues.
  • #action people here to add shipits to the PR if they're happy with it
  • #action waiting to discuss more with dharmabumstead before taking action

@dharmabumstead Then let's make sure the Ansible documentation team ultimately makes the best decision !

And by accident I closed this issue from my smartphone...

Looking for input on whether we're okay not handling archives which specify an absolute path in unarchive (impacts whether this is an acceptable fix): https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/37048

At today's meeting, people were happy to call absolute paths unsupported. nitzmahone requested a warning if we detect absolute paths in archives and abadger took an action item to look into how easy that would be.

From agaffney: Allow loading dirs from role defaults/vars https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/36357

Ansible 2.5.0 Release Candidate 2 is now available! Get it on PyPI: pip install ansible==2.5.0rc2, https://releases.ansible.com/ansible/, or GitHub.

  • This is likely to be the final Release Candidate, so please test, and raise issues on GitHub

  • ansible/ansible#38100: i am willing to fix that but what should be the behavior ? Should ansible-config always display plugins parameters ? Or should a new switch (--plugin-type) be added ? Should plugin type and name be mentioned for each plugin parameter ? Should uppercase be used for parameter names ? In the samples below, a 'regular' parameter (DEFAULT_FORKS) and a plugin parameter (oc_cert_file) are displayed:

yaml DEFAULT_FORKS: default: 5 description: Maximum number of forks Ansible will use to execute tasks on target hosts. env: - {name: ANSIBLE_FORKS} ini: - {key: forks, section: defaults} name: Number of task forks type: integer oc_cert_file: default: '' description: [Path to a certificate used to authenticate with the API.] env: - {name: K8S_AUTH_CERT_FILE} vars: - {name: ansible_oc_cert_file}
Uppercase used for parameter name:
yaml DEFAULT_FORKS: default: 5 description: Maximum number of forks Ansible will use to execute tasks on target hosts. env: - {name: ANSIBLE_FORKS} ini: - {key: forks, section: defaults} name: Number of task forks type: integer OC_CERT_FILE: default: '' description: [Path to a certificate used to authenticate with the API.] env: - {name: K8S_AUTH_CERT_FILE} vars: - {name: ansible_oc_cert_file}
Plugin type and name added:
yaml DEFAULT_FORKS: default: 5 description: Maximum number of forks Ansible will use to execute tasks on target hosts. env: - {name: ANSIBLE_FORKS} ini: - {key: forks, section: defaults} name: Number of task forks type: integer oc_cert_file: plugin_type: connection plugin_name: oc default: '' description: [Path to a certificate used to authenticate with the API.] env: - {name: K8S_AUTH_CERT_FILE} vars: - {name: ansible_oc_cert_file}


https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/37390: I would like to discuss what I need to do for this PR to be approved.

bcoca: redirected to openstack maintainers

Collaborate together to bring in Molecule https://github.com/ansible/ansible/issues/38200 (This might be a better one for the Test WG, but I figured I'd start here and we can punt if needed)
bcoca: pinged molecule author, might reschedule after pong

I'd like to ask if this is something that could be merged: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/37291~~

Was this page helpful?
0 / 5 - 0 ratings

Related issues

gundalow picture gundalow  Â·  5Comments

mscherer picture mscherer  Â·  6Comments

pm98zz-c picture pm98zz-c  Â·  5Comments

dagwieers picture dagwieers  Â·  8Comments

jillr picture jillr  Â·  8Comments