Talk:Spacewalk (software)

What is FOS license?

What is FOS license? 204.210.242.157 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Free and open source software license. -- Frap (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedic treatment of the subject

Listing iterative bug fixes? Seriously! Am I on SourceForge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.157.183 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Future section needs rewriting

Leave alone the broken grammar, it's just a meaningless word salad at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.179.210 (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested updates Required for February 2017

Earlier January 2017 updates need review against Wikipedia Policy and guidelines and checked for accuracy. The project seems to have moved from https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk/ to GitHub: https://github.com/spacewalkproject/spacewalk/wiki . There is a release 2.6 present on November 29th .

Propose page needs refactor to reflect the current status and versions of spacewalk and relationship to Redhat, SUSE and Oracle, while placing previous origins to history.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I am preparing a significant bold refactor update (in my sandpit page) that will add significant content to the article. I am significantly through this but:

• I need to add more content and research the SUSE Version more thoroughly.
• I need to check references.
• I need to achieve a publishable quality. (I am unlikely to achieve perfection and welcome contributions).

I hope to publish in a day or two, but I can see me taking a week.

I'll try to keep an eye on this talk page and my talk page if anyone want conversation.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've completed my bold refactor and content addition. I've tried to switch the main focus of the article onto Spacewalk itself and away from Satellite; and to focus where Spacewalk is in 2017. I've had to research some references and learn some history. I've tried my reasonable best to concentrate on facts and not be interpretation. I know I will not have achieved perfection nor the quality of an article such as wireshark. I am now out of time and would hate to lose the content I've done so have decided now is the time to publish. Feel free to make amendments, contributions, correct typos. etc. If you have concerns over why I've done something one way of the other please feel free to use talk to discuss it with me first.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Clean up of Talk Page

Likely to clean up talk page in a few days time to remove historical issues

Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Undo of revision 771047334

WP:SPECULATION, WP:GRAMMAR

My Reasons are:

• This article as about Spacewalk not Red Hat Satellite which has its own article.
• Speculation on Roadmap date changes are not appropriate for Wikipedia

In my opinion it is possible elements from the phrase they were designed as monolithic tools that duplicated the Red Hat Network experience, but in an internal / Intranet deployment could be worked into the Red Hat Satellite page however in my opinion citations would be needed to justify.

Have you used the tool , the above is a fact as that is what the UI was based on , as this text was lifted from Red Hat Sat pages , but now that is more fouces on sat 6 vs sat 5.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

See these conrtibutations have essentially re-appeared with same issues as described above, though WP:SPECULATION is less obvious. Need to avoid WP:EW. Please discuss.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to decline the third opinion request. There should preferably be thorough discussion, but at least some discussion must take place between two parties before a third opinion can be offered. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been using spacewalk & sat for over a decade , Red Hat wishes to EOL but the customer are not happy with Sat 6 , so the EOL dates keep getting pushed out. I have giving fact and not options. Have you all used this software ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilee (talk • contribs) 19:03, March 21, 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't normally mention this, but you've asked I've used Satellite 5 a little; Spacewalk, SUSE Manager & Satellite 6 I briefly studied to provide content updates to the Spacewalk (software) and Satellite (software) article refactoring I performed.
• With regard to changing EOL dates, or roadmap changes, this is a fact of life and happens as experienced IT professionals usually will be well aware. [disappearance of Oracle Solaris 12 in January] being a recent spectacular example. The current phrasing of As of 2017 Red Hat Satellite 5 is in long-term support mode with a current EOL date of January 31, 2020 subtly hints date changes are possible. Going to the extent speculating or indicating previous changes is likely WP:NPOV in my opinion.
  • I also explored possibility of linking to Technology_roadmap to indicate changes but that doesn't immediately work either.
• My earlier comment of: In my opinion it is possible elements from the phrase they were designed as monolithic tools that duplicated the Red Hat Network experience, but in an internal / Intranet deployment could be worked into the Red Hat Satellite page however in my opinion citations would be needed to justify remains. As the SUSE manager Spacewalk fork seems to have incorporated Salt, and as the tool integrates to e.g. cobbler, and as the tool now has proxy servers I am reluctant to use the term monolithic. Indeed if I was comfortable with the phrase I would have worked it into the Red Hat Satellite article. While I can see what you are getting at with elements of this sentence combined together it reads to me as some angles as some sort of form of Corporate jargon
• In general content which relates to Satellite 5 to Satellite 6 transition is in my opinion better placed on the Satellite (software) article. That said simply applying the content as is to that article would likely result in WP:DISPUTE.
• I am concerned from this and previous content inserts to this article you may have been upset by Red Hat decisions over Red Hat Satellite in the past, should this have been the case it may be hard to keep WP:NPOV.

In my opinion User:Godsy probably has no knowledge of Satellite and Spacewalk however I welcome his mediation.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Move of content of Satellite 5 to Red Hat Satellite Page

I propose to consolidate all Satellite 5 on the Redhat Satellite Article. (Blackrock Island (Mayo) # Blackrock Lighthouse / Blacksod Lighthouse # Associated Lighthouses for the sort of effect to be achieved which is an area I was recently collaberate in). This is to avoid risk of a WP:CFORK in future.

The paragraph for Satellite 5 on this article will continue to say something like ( I emphasis something like as below is a first draft of the suggestion ):

further information: See Satellite Software # Redhat Satellite 5

Red Hat Satellite 5 was the original and definitive downstream version of Spacewalk, indeed Spacewalk simply considered the upstream version of Red Hat Satellite 5. With Version 6 of Satellite Red Hat chose to move to a different toolset which was no longer related to a downstream versiop of Spacewalk and are choosing to phase out support for version 5.

... Any other content not already moved to be duplicated (don't think any exist but I'll examine at time of move).

... As there has been a disagreement recently in this content area (albeit not related to this move) I am giving notification of intention to resolve WP:CFORK before resolving it.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I just did some review of Satellite (Software) page in prep for the likely resolve WP:CFORK resolution and elected to expand the infobox and add a WP:SECONDARY while I was at in relation to multiple issues flag on that article. In that process I was drawn to the extended lifecycle reference and determined prudent to do a little work in that area, and will be doing a little tweaking as this is also relevant to Satellite v6. This has also made me feel even stronger a this content move of Satellite v5 to that page is prudent and useful and the way to go.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added the see/furture-formation template to the Satellite (Software) article. On review At this stage dropping the EOL sentence (which is duplicated on other article) and merging remaining sentences a single paragraph works moderately well for me with no loss of content so that is what I did.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

We don't need a builds section with a link to every minor release

This section is useless. The article already links to the github page, and main where the releases can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlynone (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

To be quite clear the build section is not useless to at least me. Ideally the table could do with an extra description column. If you haven't got a positive interest in improving the article then ignore it and go and add something constructive elsewhere rather than disrupting this. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps useless wasn't the correct term. Un-encyclopedic might be better? It's not the job of an encyclopedia to list every minor release of some software. I do have a positive interest in improving this article, which is why I made the constructive contribution that I did. It's similar to one I made years ago, which stood for years because it was the correct decision. Onlynone (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

For example, WP:NOTCHANGELOG gives an explicit example of what an article should not contain:

Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.

The idea (in my understanding) being that if a release isn't significant enough to have a write-up from a third-party source, then it's not significant enough to document in an encyclopedia. A minor software release is likely to be simple bug fixes or minor feature additions. If a release contains a significant change, it's likely to be written about by a third-party, and then could conceivably be mentioned here in the article. Until that point, this list should be removed. Onlynone (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well the tables been improved, I've added another article source and there's no need to cite non contentious from non-primary sources. So I believe it rightly deserves to remain. And I'm still in a foul move from that useless comment. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk)