On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:15 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > 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. > > This is pretty interesting... I assume after following the steps they > would have a persistent instance they could use moving forward. It > doesn't need anything special to talk to their project on hosted? > Does it end up costing the end project anything? ;) I've submitted a patch upstream to ReviewBoard to add easy configuration of Fedora Hosted source repositories: http://reviews.reviewboard.org/r/2505/ I have confirmation from Christian Hammond (the upstream project lead) that it will be included in the 1.5.6 and 1.6.0 releases (aka imminently). So there's very little that the projects need to do in order to connect to the hosted repo. As I said above, they lose the centrally-managed users available to FAS, so they'd need to manage their own groups themselves. On the other side, this does mean that they gain much finer control over permissions (since they can define their own project-specific groups rather than relying on FAS groups). > > What happens if someone sets up an instance and then disappears? > Does the project have any way to deal with that? Or just make a new one? > That's a good question for Mike McGrath. I suspect that it would be prudent to recommend that projects set up several administrators so that a disappearance of one doesn't result in the loss of all administrators. Also, it's possible to promote a user to admin status if you have database privileges as well by setting the admin flag on their user account, but of course that assumes you have access to a DB admin. A final option would be to modify the openshift instance to always install a recovery admin with a random password that was escrowed by the Fedora project, but I'm not sure whether that's realistic. Mike, can you speak to that? > Would someone be interested in trying this out and seeing how well it > actually works? Is there a project or two that are really wanting to > use reviewboard that we could ask? > Well, AutoQA has been using the FedoraHosted instance (without email support and poor performance) very heavily. They might be interested. I would also be interested in piloting it for the SSSD and FreeIPA projects (for which I originally got invested in setting this up). > > I'm all ears for a fourth (or fifth...) option. > > Well, there's https://www.rbcommons.com/plans/ but thats a cost/month. > (Which might be worth it for some projects). True, but as we already have the OpenShift option (thanks Mike!), I think it's worth looking into making this part of our Hosted offering.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
