On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > 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. > FYI, just in the last hour or so we've got full support for this in OpenShift. Here's a howto on running reviewboard: https://github.com/openshift/reviewboard-example -Mike _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
