On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 10:54 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Hosted01 has the following items on it: > > * apache/httpd > gitweb > other scm web > trac > mailman archive http access > source downloads (tar.gz, etc) > loggerhead > reviewboard I've been talking with Mike McGrath about ReviewBoard. I really want to get ReviewBoard off of Hosted, as the performance is incredibly poor and the FAS integration causes problems that I have not had a chance to identify. Furthermore, starting with ReviewBoard 1.5.6 (being released upstream soon), I've submitted patches to make it possible to use ReviewBoard against any FedoraHosted git repository remotely. The main reason that ReviewBoard was located on FedoraHosted to begin with is because it needed direct access to the git repositories. So I'd like to move ReviewBoard to one of the app servers or into an OpenShift instance. Of course, we still have issues regarding the FAS integration. For reasons I've still not been able to nail down, it causes us to lose access to the server. I was hoping to switch over to using OpenID with the release of ReviewBoard 1.6, but unfortunately they've deferred that feature until 1.7. So I'm proposing the following options: 1) Move our existing ReviewBoard instance to one of the app servers. This will significantly improve the performance and responsiveness, but we'll still have no email notification support (due to as-yet-unknown negative interaction with FAS integration) 2) Move ReviewBoard to an app server and drop integration with FAS and allow standard enrollment for users, be they Fedora users or not. This will solve the performance and email issues, but results in a server running on Fedora systems that is not using Fedora accounts. Also I'm not sure we can maintain the existing review histories for the few projects currently using the system. 3) Turn ReviewBoard into a turnkey OpenShift virtual instance and allow any Fedora Hosted project to spin one up. This instance would use standard enrollment (rather than FAS integration, which is impossible outside the Infra firewall). Each project could have its own complete instance to maintain on its own. Upsides: less work for Fedora Admins, support for email and better performance. Downsides: no centrally-managed user accounts and projects need to do more of the maintaining of the system themselves. I'm all ears for a fourth (or fifth...) option.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
