On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 16:54 -0400, James Laska wrote:

Greetings,

I am in search of sponsorship for hosting space to deploy a test instance of nitrate [1]. Some of you may recall several years back when we deployed an instance of Testopia. That exploration was cut short when we discovered license incompatibilities between testopia and Fedora. At that time, a small group of Red Hat associates began creating a new Django-based test management system to remove the components that had conflicting licenses. That new system became nitrate [1].

The Fedora QA team would like to experiment/explore this newer Django-based test management system. At the very least, I believe we'll need a publicly accessible server where we can host the nitrate instance and a mysql database for it.

I filed ticket#2673 (https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2673) to track this request. Please don't hesitate with any questions/comments/concerns.

Hurry (rhe), Danqing (dli) and myself will be able to assist with the draft RFR guidelines proposal at noted in ticket #2674. This includes ...

1. Applying rpm updates to the service (and to any underlying pieces of the application stack) if necessary. 2. Applying hotfixes via the puppet hotfix module if there's a securiry fix or bugfix that needs to go in and it's not worth spinning a new rpm. 3. Keeping up with upstream development 4. Answering questions about whether a yum update (to your app or to the underlying stack) might break your app. 5. Fixing things should an app start throwing errors in production for unknown reasons 6. Work on deployment problems

Don't hesitate if there are any other concerns or questions on this pilot and RFR request.

Thanks, James

[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2674

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:36:05 +0800 He Rui rhe@redhat.com wrote:

Greetings,

I haven't received any update on this project since the ticket filed, is it under progressing or is there anything we need help with? We planed to set it up this month or next, so please keep an eye on it.

I could probably help you guys out with this. ;)

I guess the first step is to make sure to get the package into EPEL (which it looks like it's already under review).

After thats done, we could look at testing it on a publictest instance. I'll add this information to the ticket as well, but do ping me when we are ready to do more planning. ;)

Many Thanks, Hurry

kevin --

On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 15:14 -0400, James Laska wrote:

...

On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 16:54 -0400, James Laska wrote:

...

Greetings,

I am in search of sponsorship for hosting space to deploy a test instance of nitrate [1]. Some of you may recall several years back when we deployed an instance of Testopia. That exploration was cut short when we discovered license incompatibilities between testopia and Fedora. At that time, a small group of Red Hat associates began creating a new Django-based test management system to remove the components that had conflicting licenses. That new system became nitrate [1].

The Fedora QA team would like to experiment/explore this newer Django-based test management system. At the very least, I believe we'll need a publicly accessible server where we can host the nitrate instance and a mysql database for it.

I filed ticket#2673 (https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2673) to track this request. Please don't hesitate with any questions/comments/concerns.

Hurry (rhe), Danqing (dli) and myself will be able to assist with the draft RFR guidelines proposal at noted in ticket #2674. This includes ...

 1. Applying rpm updates to the service (and to any underlying
    pieces of the application stack) if necessary.
 2. Applying hotfixes via the puppet hotfix module if there's a
    securiry fix or bugfix that needs to go in and it's not

worth spinning a new rpm. 3. Keeping up with upstream development 4. Answering questions about whether a yum update (to your app or to the underlying stack) might break your app. 5. Fixing things should an app start throwing errors in production for unknown reasons 6. Work on deployment problems

Don't hesitate if there are any other concerns or questions on this pilot and RFR request.

Thanks, James

[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2674 _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:29:03 -0400 James Laska jlaska@redhat.com wrote:

Packaging of nitrate is progressing. Libraries bundled within nitrate have been identified and submitted as separate package reviews. While the process isn't complete, I'm curious if we can pipeline a bit. Is it possible to setup a publictest instance while packaging progresses? The intent for this instance wouldn't be for production use ... more to allow us to explore use cases for Fedora and to identify any other nitrate features/changes.

Well, possibly, but you may well have to redo things as the packaging changes, so it might be more work than it's worth in the end. ;)

While I still think we should wait until all packaging work is completed before officially deploying and supporting an instance, I'm hoping to avoid waiting for packaging work to complete, deploying a test instace, then discovering some other use-case (or upstream functionality) roadblock.

Any thoughts/concerns with this idea?

Well, the other side of the coin is that you install now, get it all working, then have to just re-install and get it working again when the packaging is done. Of course there might not be too many changes from the packaging side that require redoing things. I'm not sure where the packaging is sitting at this point.

So, I would say:

* How far out does the packaging look? Is it getting close? or still much to do?

* How close is whatever you would install today to what the final packaging will be? Just the same thing but split out into seperate packages?

kevin

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 16:00:35 -0400 James Laska jlaska@redhat.com wrote:

I suspect it will be as you say, some re-{install,config} would be needed as the package progresses through review. I'm accustomed to that workflow already, so I wouldn't be upset about those changes. Also, am I correct in thinking that this publictest instance is just for testing purposes. Anything considered production would need to be handled differently, or in a separate request?

Correct. The plan is basically:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/RFR and the workflow is: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Request_for_resources_SOP

So, things start with a dev instance. In this nothing is saved, ideas and setup are tried out, the packages are tested, process for installing/managing is written up, thoughts are gathered about caching and possible setup moving forward, a sysadmin-resourcename is setup with all responsible folks working on the resource (which allows us to know who is working on it and easily contact them), etc.

...

So, I would say:

• How far out does the packaging look? Is it getting close? or still much to do?

It'd say it's progressing, I don't know if I'd be comfortable giving an accurate percentage complete. I'll defer to rhe (cc'd) for more up2date guidance there. As I understand it, upstream is involved and actively responding to issues raised during review. The current challenge involves identifying bundled libraries, and moving them off into separate package reviews.

...

• How close is whatever you would install today to what the final packaging will be? Just the same thing but split out into seperate packages?

I *think* so. There will likely be a new upstream release (or two) while this happens. But I don't expect a tremendous amount of package-related churn for that.

ok.

So, I guess if you guys are ready for a dev instance we could set one up and get the ball rolling? Or wait until packaging is done to reduce the amount of churn/changes. ;) Up to you.

kevin