Skip to content

3.17: Remove orphaned files - #5153

Open
jafiala wants to merge 3 commits into
theforeman:3.17from
jafiala:fix-orphaned-files
Open

3.17: Remove orphaned files#5153
jafiala wants to merge 3 commits into
theforeman:3.17from
jafiala:fix-orphaned-files

Conversation

@jafiala

@jafiala jafiala commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What changes are you introducing?

Delete 6 module files that are orphaned on the 3.17 branch:

  • con_boot-loader-management-and-file-structure.adoc
  • ref_boot-loader-types-in-project.adoc
  • ref_http-capable-boot-loaders.adoc
  • ref_pxelinux-boot-loaders.adoc
  • con_configuring-smart-proxy-servers-with-a-custom-ssl-certificate.adoc
  • proc_running-an-ansible-playbook.adoc

These files are not included by any assembly or guide on 3.17, causing the find_unused_modules CI check to fail for all PRs targeting this branch.

Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)

These modules exist on master and are properly included there, but ended up on 3.17 through incomplete cherry-picks:

Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)

These modules remain on master where they are properly included. An alternative would have been backporting the missing assemblies and includes to 3.17, but since 3.17 is a release branch and the content was never published there, deletion is the simpler and safer approach.

Contributor checklists

  • I am okay with my commits getting squashed when you merge this PR.
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines.

Please cherry-pick my commits into:

  • Foreman 3.19/Katello 4.21
  • Foreman 3.18/Katello 4.20 (Satellite 6.19; orcharhino 7.9)
  • Foreman 3.17/Katello 4.19
  • Foreman 3.16/Katello 4.18 (Satellite 6.18; orcharhino 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8)
  • Foreman 3.15/Katello 4.17
  • Foreman 3.14/Katello 4.16 (Satellite 6.17; orcharhino 7.4; orcharhino 7.5)
  • We do not accept PRs for Foreman older than 3.14.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective Needs testing Requires functional testing labels Aug 5, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@jafiala
jafiala marked this pull request as ready for review August 5, 2026 10:32
@jafiala jafiala removed Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective Needs testing Requires functional testing labels Aug 5, 2026
@aneta-petrova

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
* `proc_running-an-ansible-playbook.adoc` was moved from the Ansible guide to `assembly_configuring-and-setting-up-remote-jobs.adoc` in PR [Review Managing Configurations by using Ansible for CQA #4818](https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-documentation/pull/4818), but only the removal from the Ansible guide was cherry-picked — the new include was not added to the assembly on 3.17.

For this file, can you please add it to Managing Hosts rather than delete it? This would be the right place:

@aneta-petrova

aneta-petrova commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
* `con_configuring-smart-proxy-servers-with-a-custom-ssl-certificate.adoc` was created by PR [Fix asciidoctor-dita-vale errors for the ConceptLink rule #4801](https://github.com/theforeman/foreman-documentation/pull/4801) (ConceptLink fixes), but the corresponding include in `assembly_installing-smart-proxy-server.adoc` was never added on 3.17.

This one should be safe to delete. The only issue seems to be that because the new module from master isn't used on 3.17, the corresponding module on 3.17 still has links in the concept. I'll look into that right away in a different PR.

EDIT: #5154

@jafiala

jafiala commented Aug 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks @aneta-petrova , restored and included.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective Not yet reviewed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants