I am aware that it is possible to filter targets by role in the Infrastructure UI. However, my usual workflow is to notice a role in a deployment process of a project and then try to look for that role.

Currently, this means copying the role name, going to Infrastructure and pasting the role there.

My request: Allow the role labels on deployment steps to be clicked in order to open a new tab at the "infrastructure/machines?roles=<clicked role>" URL.

Should be super simple to implement and significantly reduce the amount of clicks needed in this scenario (which is very frequent, at least for me and my colleagues)

Semver 2.0.0 support has been added to Octopus, now supporting both pre-release tags and build metadata, e.g.

2.0.0-pre.release+build.info

However Channel Version Range matching has not been expanded to also support SemVer 2.0.0, and still only allow matching on SemVer 1.0.0 components, the version number (range) and pre-release tag (regex).

I suggest you add SemVer 2.0.0 support to Channel Version Ranges, adding a second regex to optionally match on build info.

The will enable users to automatically select and restrict the correct deployment Channel for the type of build.

Use case 1: We have some projects that use opinionated frameworks that just love to bake in environment configurations as part of their build process. As a result we have some packages where the SemVer differs only by the build information, based the environment it was built for, e.g.

1.2.3+abcd123.europe
1.2.3+abcd123.useast

We would like to use Channel Version Rules to ensure the correct configuration uses the correct Channel only. And to enable the use of Automatic Release Creation.

Use case 2: We have Kubernetes clusters with both Linux and Windows nodes, building services requires different build configurations and dependencies, and so we have two configurations of each release that differ only by the build information.

1.2.3+win64
1.2.3+linux

Use case 3: We have nodejs serverless functions that we want to deploy across Lambda, Knative, Azure Functions. The same functions can be written to run in all three, but the build packaging needs to be different. As a result we have some packages where the SemVer differs only by the build information, based the environment it was built for, e.g.

1.2.3+lamda
1.2.3+azure
1.2.3+knative

In discussion it was suggested to append the build configuration information on the package name rather that to the SemVer. However that mixes two concerns into the one field, that isn't even part of the version. SerVer 2.0.0 introduces a way to do this properly, and Octopus should ideally support that best practice.

Ref: https://octopus.com/docs/deployment-process/channels#Channels-VersionRange
Ref: https://semver.org/#semantic-versioning-200
Ref: https://help.octopus.com/t/can-channel-version-rules-match-on-build-information/23370

I help manage deployments for a software team that is working on moving from bi-weekly releases to continuous delivery. In order to transition smoothly, we have decided to have four environments in our pipeline: Dev > Alpha > Beta > Production. This allows us to continuously deliver internally from Dev (automatically deployed to from build server) to Alpha (snapshot of all projects promoted to Beta bi-weekly for staging).

What I would like to have the ability to do is make all deployments to Dev synchronous in that they wait if there is a current deployment to Dev and stay pending if that deployment fails. I do not want this to happen on any other environments.

I will be using the Run a Script step template and the Octopus API to do this with proper scoping in each project’s process in the meantime, but a built in feature would save a lot of maintenance. I would also expect that this is a common requirement for continuous delivery in order to accurately freeze your pipeline.

We have nearly a dozen client/WPF projects that primarily consist of backing up a directory and then overwriting it with an updated package (size ranging from 20-350MB). Each of these projects push their packages to 20 remote servers, but the servers cannot host tentacles due to our security policies, so we run the steps from one of our Octopus hosts (via tentacle installed alongside the manager service). This is slow and expensive on the Octopus host, especially when there are many other deploys underway. Worst of all, it forces steps to deploy in serial versus parallel because all steps are running through a single agent.

After reading a bit on workers and worker pools, I thought they might provide a solution for our bottleneck by offloading the work from our Octo servers and enabling parallel deployments. However, after building a pool, I realized worker-enabled steps are seemingly limited to cloud and scripts. If I was pushing these packages to an S3 bucket, I’d be good to go, but I cannot choose a worker pool as the execution location for the ‘Deploy a Package’ steps we are using. I’ve also considered using PS scripts to push these packages around, but we enjoy using built in configuration features to uniquely configure each remote locations files.

Can worker pool support be enabled for the ‘Deploy a Package’ step so I can use workers to push packages to remote Windows servers?

With Octopus Cloud 2012.5.9 we can’t assign our own CNAME to the server instance due to the Let’s Encrypt module being missing.

It is ok for internal use, but if we want Tenants to have access to see what we’ve deployed for them, then we would want to use octopus.mycompany.com not mycompany123.octopus.app.

It might seem minor, but does Octopus use octopus123@yahoo.com as your public email address for customers? Nope, and we don’t want to either :-)

Please add back the excellent Let’s Encrypt module in Octopus Cloud and route port 80 or just .well-known/acme-challenge/ to the relevant instance. Octopus Cloud customers can create their own CNAME record, and we are back in our happy place / domain.