Thomas Merz

@ayanamist , hm, no RPMs overthere… I'm currently fine with the docker-solution 👍🏻

@svenja11 , that's right. I moved it from MD-files into a single one: [`fail.sh`](https://github.com/thomasmerz/community-content/blob/issue_450/tutorials/failover-script/fail.sh). The other files in [tutorials/failover-script](https://github.com/thomasmerz/community-content/tree/issue_450/tutorials/failover-script) are only for showing failing and fixed `shellcheck` before from 01.sh(.start)...

Should I remove now _"the other files in [tutorials/failover-script](https://github.com/thomasmerz/community-content/tree/issue_450/tutorials/failover-script) that are only for showing failing and fixed shellcheck before from 01.sh(.start) and 02.sh(.start) which are now "all-in-one" (fail.sh)"_ before merging?

@svenja11 , my thoughts about files `01.en.md` and `01.de.md`: I have provided a link to the real script to deduplicate it from two markdown-files and for easier download. Would you...

@svenja11 , I understood and moved `fail.sh` back again into both markdown files 👍🏼

Here's my `shellcheck' [GitHub Action in my forked repo](https://github.com/thomasmerz/community-content/actions/runs/3488588860/jobs/5837597540) proving that everything is fine now: With this [GitHub Action definition](https://github.com/thomasmerz/community-content/commit/9be1e5fb3f1f9c66c35f63affe4d89c93f521201): ``` name: Shellcheck Lint on: push: paths: # Run workflow...

@cryptogap resolved conflict. What about the discussions? 🤔

@spirillen , are there still "ripping issues" or is this PR ok for you? If not, I will close my PR and this issue should be closed.

Hooray! @PeterDaveHello 🎉

Ping @gdha