These are chat archives for ManageIQ/manageiq/performance

15th
Nov 2018
Keenan Brock
@kbrock
Nov 15 2018 16:45
@jrafanie the tangent that took me away from rails: ManageIQ/manageiq#18205
with that PR, we can fix more of the reports that have incorrect include: entries, so more tests will pass
(and more code will work since there won't be errors in our report files)
@NickLaMuro let me know if you need more fixes for ManageIQ/manageiq#18198
Keenan Brock
@kbrock
Nov 15 2018 16:54
@NickLaMuro is ManageIQ/manageiq#17475 hammer/yes?
Nick LaMuro
@NickLaMuro
Nov 15 2018 16:57
I was planning on all of these being hammer/no, just because there is no immediate need for them. They just make it better.
Gave a more specific reply in ManageIQ/manageiq#18198
Keenan Brock
@kbrock
Nov 15 2018 17:05
is rails 51 hammer?
Nick LaMuro
@NickLaMuro
Nov 15 2018 17:39
I would say "no", but @jrafanie probably would have the actual answer
Joe Rafaniello
@jrafanie
Nov 15 2018 17:39
@kbrock what? Are you asking what branch will contain rails 5.1?
Keenan Brock
@kbrock
Nov 15 2018 17:39
yes
Nick LaMuro
@NickLaMuro
Nov 15 2018 17:39
based on how close we are do a release, it seems like it would clearly be a no
Joe Rafaniello
@jrafanie
Nov 15 2018 17:39
I'm thinking hammer/no, maybe i/yes
Keenan Brock
@kbrock
Nov 15 2018 17:39
because we're making some core changes. and I want those changes to get into the branch that gets rails 51
+1 thnx
Jason Frey
@Fryguy
Nov 15 2018 17:39
it's too late for hammer
we are already past feature freeze, and this is a feature
you can say the hammer has already dropped
Joe Rafaniello
@jrafanie
Nov 15 2018 17:40
I'm slowly pulling out commits to master that are 5.0/5.1 safe... when we're ready for 5.1, we can decide what we want to do based on what's in the PR at that point