compliant-financial-infrastructure
compliant-financial-infrastructure copied to clipboard
OpenShift Kubernetes Definition
Work Items
- [x] Service Accelerator Template for OpenShift (Kubernetes)
- https://github.com/finos/compliant-financial-infrastructure/pull/170
- https://github.com/finos/compliant-financial-infrastructure/pull/205
- [ ] Create scripts for deployment as defined in Service Approval Accelerator template
- [x] https://github.com/finos/compliant-financial-infrastructure/issues/201
- [ ] Testing and validation of above mentioned scripts
- [ ] Raise PR request accordingly
@leefaus and @J0EG 👋🏻
Thanks for your feedback regarding noting closed PR #97 on this issue. I have updated above for your information ...
- https://github.com/finos/cloud-service-certification/issues/92#issue-791966523
James 🚀
@J0EG - Async review and possible offline session required to review new PR.
- [x] @J0EG to organise async review via Slack and other GitHub channels (GH issue, PR etc)
- [x] If needed, @mcleo-d to organise Zoom call and open to the CSC project for week commencing 19th July.
Note : Async is the preferred approach due to getting people together and into an organised call.
@mcleo-d I just noticed that the link to the in the second task above "Create scripts for deployment as defined in" is broken, I can raise a PR but before doing so I wanted to double check which accerator doc you were linking to, I assume this one sat_rh_ocp.adoc. Thanks
Hi @AdrianHammond,
Thanks for raising the broken link. The project structure update made by @eddie-knight and @thinkl33t in #200 created the 404, so I have simply updated the link to the newly created ocp folder.
I hope this works for you?
James.
forked /dev branch to https://github.com/AdrianHammond/compliant-financial-infrastructure
Hi @mcleo-d
I think it might be possible to close this off as with the work already done with merge #235 and the following new issues
- #253 to create IAC for OCP on GCP has superseded #201
- #229 Updating OCP SAA to new template
I think the open actions in this issue are now redundant. What do you think?
Thanks Adrian
@mcleo-d this can be closed as superceeded by #253 and #229