-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 108
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.
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
Update byoe-rhel8.md #2433
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Update byoe-rhel8.md #2433
Conversation
docs/gettingstarted/byoe-rhel8.md
Outdated
@@ -1,38 +1,36 @@ | |||
# SC4S "Bring Your Own Environment" | |||
# Configure SC4S in a custom environment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
maybe something like non-containerized SC4S deployment
?
Because the only difference between this and other deployments is that here we do bare-metal deployment, and in others we use podman/docker containers
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
something like this? "# Configure SC4S in a non-containerized SC4S deployment
Configuring SC4S in a non-containerized SC4S deployment requires a custom configuration. Consider this configuration only if:"
we probably still want to talk about what is and what isn't supported, for now i took out the "we don't support it" part, because it seems like we do, but to a limited extent. Any suggestions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jenworthington we don't provide technical support and it's the customer's responsibility to maintain this type of deployment, but we provide installation packages
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The changes version sounds great, thank you. please only restore the part related to the support
@jenworthington looks good and ready for the final pass, please see my comments. SC4S PM decided to keep it in the docs |
made another pass and committed those changes to this branch. |
@jenworthington we need to sort out the support statements and it's ready to merge |
I don't think we should be summarizing an external blog, and there might be legal issues for documenting a configuration we do not support. Perhaps we could remove this topic all together and supply a link to the blog in an overview topic?