|Summary:||[RFE] Additional Functionality for Scheduling Jobs in Satellite 6.2|
|Product:||Red Hat Satellite 6||Reporter:||Mihir Lele <mlele>|
|Component:||Remote Execution||Assignee:||satellite6-bugs <satellite6-bugs>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:|
|Version:||6.2.0||CC:||aruzicka, bkearney, inecas, kelly.brown1, rjerrido, taw|
|Target Milestone:||Unspecified||Keywords:||FutureFeature, Triaged|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||If docs needed, set a value|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2017-10-10 07:44:01 UTC||Type:||Bug|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Mihir Lele 2016-07-25 17:35:33 UTC
1. Proposed title of this feature request Additional Functionality for the Job Scheduling Feature in Satellite 6.1 2. Who is the customer behind the request? Account: name (acct #) 1099189 TAM customer: no/yes no SRM customer: no/yes no Strategic: no/yes yes 3. What is the nature and description of the request? A) Ability to run job B if the job A fails B) Option to run jobs serially or parallely 4. Why does the customer need this? (List the business requirements here) Not Available 5. How would the customer like to achieve this? (List the functional requirements here) A) 6. For each functional requirement listed, specify how Red Hat and the customer can test to confirm the requirement is successfully implemented. NA 7. Is there already an existing RFE upstream or in Red Hat Bugzilla? No 8. Does the customer have any specific timeline dependencies and which release would they like to target (i.e. RHEL5, RHEL6)? No 9. Is the sales team involved in this request and do they have any additional input? No 10. List any affected packages or components. NA 11. Would the customer be able to assist in testing this functionality if implemented? Yes
Comment 1 Ivan Necas 2016-07-26 11:22:04 UTC
It seems there is quite a big overlap of this feature with what Ansible Tower and/or CloudForms are already going. Should we make this workflow as part of the integration story instead of tying to implement that on our own?
Comment 2 Bryan Kearney 2016-07-26 18:53:55 UTC
Moving 6.2 bugs out to sat-backlog.
Comment 5 Adam Ruzicka 2017-10-10 07:44:01 UTC
Closing because the requested functionality overlaps with other products.