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

Rework #1

Open
wants to merge 31 commits into
base: distributed-rework
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Rework #1

wants to merge 31 commits into from

Conversation

ypid
Copy link

@ypid ypid commented Apr 13, 2017

@ganto I missed your development branch and was going to rework the role myself. Now, I would rather propose to merge this into https://github.com/ganto/ansible-checkmk_server/tree/distributed-rework to minimize merge conflicts.

I wanted to work a bit more on the role, update the Apache setup and so on. Is that ok with you when I base my work on https://github.com/ganto/ansible-checkmk_server/tree/distributed-rework? I could also wait a few weeks and base my work on master if you prefer that.
Edit: I guess I will wait a bit to not interfere. Just finished reading debops-contrib#53.

Awesome work btw 👍

Related to: debops-contrib#53

ganto and others added 30 commits February 13, 2017 07:11
This allows easier access from the slave sites without a forced
dependency on the hostname of the master.
git ls-files -z "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" | xargs --null -I '{}' find '{}' -type f -print0 | xargs --null sed --in-place --regexp-extended 's#git(://github.com)#https\1#g;'
DebOps compliance :)

git ls-files -z "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" | xargs --null -I '{}' find '{}' -type f -print0 | xargs --null sed --in-place --regexp-extended 's#checkmk_server__hostname#checkmk_server__fqdn#g;'
git ls-files -z "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)" | xargs --null -I '{}' find '{}' -type f -print0 | xargs --null sed --in-place --regexp-extended 's/\<(checkmk_server)_([^_])/\1__\2/g;'
@ganto
Copy link
Owner

ganto commented Apr 14, 2017

Nice work 👍 The documentation was just the next point I wanted to address.

I guess so far there are not so much code changes, so I would prefer this to be merged with master of debops-contrib. Those changes are not (yet) specific to my rework and I'm worried, that if I need to take another new approach, I might lose your changes along the way.

@ypid
Copy link
Author

ypid commented Apr 14, 2017

Thanks. Done in debops-contrib#54

@ganto ganto force-pushed the distributed-rework branch from 432e67d to e51f79f Compare April 19, 2017 04:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants