On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:26 -0500 Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I might have missed something, but are there plans to add bugzilla > >> to this? > > > > It was suggested, but we don't actually run bugzilla.redhat.com or > > have anything to do with it. So it would be a bit difficult to try > > and report status on it when all we could see is 'it's down' or 'it > > seems to be up now' > > That by itself would be enough for me. And for anyone who sees some > failure and has no idea what's going on. Even with a not saying > "maintained by RH, not Fedora Inf", or somesuch. I'd really like to avoid that, because it would lead to: "when is it going to be up?" -> no idea. "It works for me, but not for otheruser, is there a network problem?" -> no idea. "You are saying it's down, but it's up for me" (mark it up, site goes down again because of some ongoing problem) "Now it's down, please mark it down again" -> If we managed it, we would know the ongoing issue and could update when it was approprate/fully back up. And cases where we mark it down, when it's not, or only for some users, etc. It also opens the door for "Oh, can you monitor my fedora related site and report on it there?" which I REALLY don't want to do. The updates are a manual process, so it's already another step someone in Infrastructure has to do when there is an outage. Lets keep it to sites that Fedora Infrastructure directly manages. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
