I'm not using Ansible inside CI yet, but I remember having had to adapt some 1.9 playbooks for 2.x. [1] Perhaps also worth mentioning, Ansible 2.2.1.0 fixed CVE-2016-9587, CVE-2016-8647, CVE-2016-9587 and CVE-2016-8647 (the first is about a compromised remote system being able to run commands on the Ansible controller - I think 1.9 is also vulnerable [2]). Unless we can afford to quickly backport such security fixes, wouldn't it be better to use the EPEL version everywhere inside CentOS? Regards, Laurențiu [1] https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/porting_guide_2.0.html [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/711357/ On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:49 PM, David Moreau Simard <dms at redhat.com> wrote: > Worth mentioning that 1.9.x and 2.0.x are officially unsupported and > unmaintained [1]. > > [1]: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ansible-devel/6-6FdxZ94kc > > David Moreau Simard > Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO > > dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter] > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Brian Stinson <brian at bstinson.com> > wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > We've been shipping Ansible 1.9.x on the slaves for a while now. Do any > > of you have use-cases to stay pinned to such an old version? > > > > We'd like to update at least to the 2.1 branch (2.2 has some > > templating/variable-quoting gotchas) in the near future. > > > > Questions, comments? > > > > --Brian > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ci-users mailing list > > Ci-users at centos.org > > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-users > _______________________________________________ > Ci-users mailing list > Ci-users at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-users > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ci-users/attachments/20170125/bb808059/attachment-0002.html>