Open Stack

Seems reasonable.

If someone could put a "dumping ground" directory together that would
help. (with an uncurated script as an example)

So, i'm getting a feeling we should roll back the bashscript gate, and
go back to noop.

Thoughts?

Best Regards, 
JJ Asghar 
c: 512.619.0722 t: @jjasghar irc: j^2 

On 9/29/15 3:29 PM, Kris G. Lindgren wrote:
> If we are going to be stringent on formatting – I would also like to
> see us be relatively consistent on arguments/env variables that are
> needed to make a script run.  Some pull in ENV vars, some source a rc
> file, some just say already source your rc file to start with, others
> accept command options.  It would be nice if we had a set of curated
> scripts that all worked in a similar fashion.
>
> Also, to Joe's point. It would be nice if we had two place for
> scripts.  A "dumping ground" that people could share what they had.
>  And a curated one, where everything within the curated repo follows a
> standard set of conventions/guidelines.  
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Kris Lindgren
> Senior Linux Systems Engineer
> GoDaddy
>
> From: Joe Topjian
> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 1:43 PM
> To: JJ Asghar
> Cc: "openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>"
> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-operators][osops]
> Something other than NOOP in our jenkins tests
>
> So this will require bash scripts to adhere to bashate before being
> accepted? Is it possible to have the check as non-voting? Does this
> open the door to having other file types be checked?
>
> IMHO, it's more important for the OSOps project to foster
> collaboration and contributions rather than worry about an accepted
> style.
>
> As an example, yesterday's commits used hard-tabs:
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228545/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/228534/
>
> I think we're going to see a lot of variation of styles coming in.
>
> I don't want to come off as sounding ignorant or disrespectful to
> other projects that have guidelines in place -- I fully understand and
> respect those decisions.
>
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM, JJ Asghar <jj at chef.io
> <mailto:jj at chef.io>> wrote:
>
>     Awesome! That works!
>
>     Best Regards,
>     JJ Asghar
>     c: 512.619.0722 <tel:512.619.0722> t: @jjasghar irc: j^2
>
>     On 9/29/15 1:27 PM, Christian Berendt wrote:
>     > On 09/29/2015 07:45 PM, JJ Asghar wrote:
>     >> So this popped up today[1]. This seems like something that
>     should be
>     >> leveraged in our gates/validations?
>     >
>     > I prepared review requests to enable checks on the gates for
>     >
>     > * osops-tools-monitoring:
>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/
>     <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229094/>
>     > * osops-tools-generic: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/
>     <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/229043/>
>     >
>     > Christian.
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-operators mailing list
>     OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20150929/0a2e9323/attachment.html>