On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 12:22 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:13:22PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > > So one of the things moving from EPEL to RHEL in EL-6 is the TurboGears 2
> > > stack. We recently had TG-2.1 pushed into EPEL-5 testing. this is newer than
> > > what is in EL-6. TG-2.1 broke a couple of things in Moksha(community)
> > > because its using internal api's that changed, the public api is stable. but
> > > it brings up the maintenance burden for when we start migrating to EL-6 on app
> > > servers. Moksha would ethier need to work with 2.0 and 2.1? not sure if its
> > > doable. or the version for EL-6 will need to use the old api. or something
> > > else ive not mentioned/thought of.
> > >
> >
> > FWIW, when I tested 2.1 with virt_web (it was written against 2.0) so I
> > suspect the changes are small.
> >
> > >
> > > another option is replace the TG stack. which then means for the life of us
> > > using EL-6 we will need to maintain the TG stack in the infra repo and any
> > > packages we use on top of it. it also means we cant put TG apps into EPEL-6
> > > since they wont work.
> > >
> > > alternatively we could use some fedora app servers where we can put everything
> > > into fedora. maintain an updated stack in fedora, but have the additional
> > > cost of greater maintenance needed for the fedora based servers.
> > >
> > > I don't have the answer but we need to start the discussion now so that we
> > > have a plan and dont get blindsided by this.
> > >
> >
> > Also right now we only have one tg2 app/stack deployed in community. It
> > exists fine with the 1.x tree. Luke's already got a working moksha with
> > 2.1 so I think keeping our apps in line will be pretty easy, the bigger
> > question is what will ship with RHEL. if they do ship 2.0, will EPEL
> > allow a 2.1 fork or will we have to run our own? Will it not matter? I
> > think I have more questions then answers on that but yeah thanks for
> > getting the conversation started.
> >
> Just judging by the way the infrastructure repo has grown over the course of
> RHEL5, I think that it's inevitable that we eventually roll our own version
> of tings that we are developing against. However, for the sake of reducing
> the maintainance burden we carry, I think it would be great if we could
> defer this for as long as possible.
>
> In TG2 vs TG2.1's case, most of the improvements seem to be speed. If we
> aren't having problems keeping up with the number of requests, perhaps we
> want to wait to switch to TG-2.1 on the app servers. Luke, does that sound
> right for now?
Speed, and a lot of bugfixes.
http://trac.turbogears.org/wiki/2.0/ChangeLog
Also, TG2.1, which is in EL-5 testing, is already on our app servers as
of yesterday. If we need to pull 2.1 out of EL-5, we'll want to
downgrade.
luke
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
