On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:53:06 +0200 Xavier Lamien <laxathom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ...snip... > > Are you taking into account the FAS format (user, sponsors, Admin) > > for the > access level? > Unless you guys don't intend to plug it to FAS. > Otherwise, that sounds reasonable. I think initially we are not wanting to interface with fas directly. We could revisit that I suppose... it might be nice to have groups in fas update the cloud permissions, but I have no idea how hard that will be. > > +1 on this default. Which lead me to ask : > Does intance aims to be accessible from outside of the fpo network? Yes. We have a class C of external IP's. Of course there may be some instances that will not need to use external ip's, but many will. > > Right, however, we're not targeting the same user neither the same use > cases, right? > Or are you saying we could word something based on them? Just something based on them, or related I guess. > sounds reasonable. > However, I think we should more focus on security and critical bugs > affecting the instances and not just update for the fun. As said, > user can handle its updates itself. Yeah, true. > Additional questions: > > Does this "private cloud" intend to replace the publictests.* system > in place in a near future? Yes. we have already largely phased out public test systems in favor of $application.dev instances for development of applications. If we can work it, I'd love for our *dev instances to move to this as well. I suspect many of them are idle a lot of the time, and it would be great to have it so a dev could just bring one up, work on it, and then snapshot/drop it. > > I may have more questions following up. Please do! Thanks for the input. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
