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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Restructure migration section #3562

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: 3.12
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Restructure migration section #3562

wants to merge 5 commits into from
+34 −16

Conversation

AkshayGadhaveRH
Copy link
Contributor

@AkshayGadhaveRH AkshayGadhaveRH commented Jan 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

The current structure of the migration section makes it a little difficult to navigate. Based on the feedback, the following changes are being made:

  • Split the migration section into two, so that it is more readable.
  • Push cloning to the top, as this is one of the easier methods.

JIRA: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SAT-29194

What changes are you introducing?

Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)

Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)

Checklists

  • I am okay with my commits getting squashed when you merge this PR.
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines.

Please cherry-pick my commits into:

  • Foreman 3.13/Katello 4.15 (EL9 only)
  • Foreman 3.12/Katello 4.14 (Satellite 6.16)
  • Foreman 3.11/Katello 4.13 (orcharhino 6.11 on EL8 only; orcharhino 7.0 on EL8+EL9)
  • Foreman 3.10/Katello 4.12
  • Foreman 3.9/Katello 4.11 (Satellite 6.15; orcharhino 6.8/6.9/6.10)
  • Foreman 3.8/Katello 4.10
  • Foreman 3.7/Katello 4.9 (Satellite 6.14)
  • We do not accept PRs for Foreman older than 3.7.

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jan 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

The PR preview for baf9fa5 is available at theforeman-foreman-documentation-preview-pr-3562.surge.sh

The following output files are affected by this PR:

show diff

show diff as HTML

@AkshayGadhaveRH
Copy link
Contributor Author

The feedback has also asked us to include text instructions rather than links to other docs. Does this seem like a good idea? I can reuse the existing modules for this.

@AkshayGadhaveRH AkshayGadhaveRH added Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective labels Jan 13, 2025
@pr-processor pr-processor bot added the Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author label Jan 13, 2025
@asteflova
Copy link
Member

The feedback has also asked us to include text instructions rather than links to other docs. Does this seem like a good idea? I can reuse the existing modules for this.

Do you think you can reuse only certain modules that are relevant to the use case of migrating? If so, it might indeed be a good idea to include them directly.

One catch that I can see is that the backup chapter is written in a feature-based mode, so it leaves quite a few decisions to users (offline or online backup? do I back up remote databases? do I back up with or without Pulp content? incremental backup? example procedure for a weekly backup, which doesn't even fit in the use case of upgrading...). That means that the chapter includes a lot of information that users who are upgrading don't need. So including it in the Upgrading guide wouldn't help them.

If you think that there is a way to include only the relevant modules in a way that makes sense, feel free to go for it! :) If not, you would probably need to write a whole new backup procedure specifically for migrating (I don't think it's worth it) or keep the current links (which I think is fine).

@AkshayGadhaveRH AkshayGadhaveRH force-pushed the split_migration_cloning_chapters branch from 3257fbf to 0737dd8 Compare January 15, 2025 06:43
@pr-processor pr-processor bot added Needs re-review and removed Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author Needs re-review labels Jan 15, 2025
@AkshayGadhaveRH AkshayGadhaveRH force-pushed the split_migration_cloning_chapters branch from 0737dd8 to de7ef04 Compare January 17, 2025 06:43
asteflova
asteflova approved these changes Jan 17, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@asteflova asteflova left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! Content looks okay, links are working. Just one issue with ID/filename/heading not matching so please address that and other than that, style review done.

guides/common/modules/proc_migrating-project-using-clone.adoc Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@asteflova asteflova added style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective and removed Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective labels Jan 17, 2025
Akshay Gadhave added 5 commits January 17, 2025 17:08
Restructure migration section
64228f6 
The current structure of the migration section makes it a little difficult to navigate.
Based on the feedback, the following changes are being made:
- Split the migration section into two, so that it is more readable.
- Push cloning to the top, as this is one of the easier methods.

JIRA: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SAT-29194
Apply changes suggested in PR
ef6b9b6
Apply changes suggested in PR
5d00d14
Rename file to remove smartproxy mention
edd8e40
Rename filename
6ab4ce0
@AkshayGadhaveRH AkshayGadhaveRH force-pushed the split_migration_cloning_chapters branch from baf9fa5 to 6ab4ce0 Compare January 17, 2025 11:43
@AkshayGadhaveRH
Copy link
Contributor Author

@evgeni could you take a look at this and let me know if this needs any changes?

evgeni
evgeni reviewed Jan 17, 2025
View reviewed changes
guides/common/modules/con_upgrading-el-on-project-or-proxy.adoc
Comment on lines -7 to +9
* Leapp in-place upgrade
* Migration by using backup and restore
* Migration by using cloning
* Migration by using backup and restore
* Leapp in-place upgrade
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is in-place last now? While I can see "clone before restore", I don't see "clone before leapp" -- especially as clone doesn't work for proxies but the entry here is "you can use the following methods for … proxy"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@evgeni evgeni evgeni left review comments

@asteflova asteflova asteflova approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@AkshayGadhaveRH @asteflova @evgeni