This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[opensource-wg] NetBox
- Previous message (by thread): [opensource-wg] NetBox
- Next message (by thread): [opensource-wg] Open Source WG & Virtual Meetings
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Wed Dec 16 22:33:52 CET 2020
Hi, > I think this is a huge step back but have the same feeling that > arguing with the maintainer(s) isn't really fruitful most of the time :( I was one of the maintainers for a bit, but even I have given up :( I'm not even trying to solve https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/issues/5469 anymore. >> I was wondering: how do other NetBox users deal with this? Maintain >> your own fork (there seem to be MANY forks on GitHub), stick with a >> version that works, ...? > For now I'm sticking with 2.9.x but eventually there needs to be a > solution which is save to update. Same for me. >> I know there are people already looking to do a LibreNMS-style fork of >> NetBox and continue development under more community-friendly >> management. Would people be interested in something like that? Because >> that's definitely the style that I want to contribute to :) > I'm thinking of forking netbox for a while not as I have to work around for > a number of things which could IMHO easily be added natively. From my point > of view the most pressing things are > * custom fields on interfaces (which are "not required" as the > maintainers think) and where I work around by having an ifaces dict > in config contexts (primary for GRE tunnels) > * Modelling Wifi PTP connections (which is accepted, see #3979) > * more API stability so you don't have to update your consumer > systems every other minor release (a bit exaggerating, but not much) > * Support for bridges (I would implement that like LAGs) > > As I have quite a bit on my plate as it is I'm not too keen on doing > all that but if there were a mostly compatible fork with the mentioned > spirit I'd be up for adding stuff like the briding as it would save me > quite a lot of pain by working around it by tags/config contexts. Thanks! I know there is a company that is willing to support a NetBox fork with money and/or time, but I'll leave it up to them to announce their plans. > Thanks for you effors on the CWDM/DWDM/cabling stuff, I followed that > a bit in the issues; it's very helpful and very much appreaciated <3 Thanks! Just so annoying that Jeremy breaks it with every thing he does. I almost feel like he does it intentionally because it doesn't fit in his world view :/ Cheers, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [opensource-wg] NetBox
- Next message (by thread): [opensource-wg] Open Source WG & Virtual Meetings
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]