Then yes, we have a different POV of what the use of this is. I'd be concerned with end users leveraging a test system. There's ways we can handle it though - maybe add very obvious environment badging and not using similar data sets.
John On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 8:23 AM sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > This thread is about providing a shared public test installation that > can also be used by end-users. > > Discussion of local developer installations belongs in a separate thread > please. > > > On 12 November 2016 at 13:06, John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was able to get a ubuntu based VM working locally. The install > > instructions seem to work fine. > > > > The only thing I'm facing now is trying to get my local changes syncing > > properly to the VM. > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 8:53 AM Ulises <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Would it be beneficial to have a virtualbox/docker thing for local > testing? > >> If so, I think I have an old Vagrantfile I could polish and contribute. > >> > >> U > >> > >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 at 13:15 sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > On 11 November 2016 at 02:30, John D. Ament <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > +1 > >> > > > >> > > would you want some puppet config to be able to build the box from? > >> and > >> > > would it be possible to grant the PPMC access to the box for manual > >> > testing? > >> > > >> > That's what I am assuming/hoping. > >> > Otherwise it's going to be far less useful. > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:21 PM Gavin McDonald < > [email protected] > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 11 Nov. 2016, at 1:16 pm, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Would it be worth setting up a test installation, along with some > >> test > >> > >> data? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > This would allow testing of changes to the code by many more > people. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > And would allow people who have reported bugs to see if any fixes > >> work > >> > >> for them. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I think we should use only public data just in case (we could > >> simulate > >> > >> > some private mails). > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Since the Permalinks could not be guaranteed to work long-term, I > >> > >> > think the button text should also be changed on the box. Maybe > the > >> > >> > list ids could be changed as well. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Thoughts? > >> > >> > >> > >> I think its a good idea. Ask Infra for a test box where a > >> Nightly/Weekly > >> > >> wipe and build of trunk/master > >> > >> can be available with test data. > >> > >> > >> > >> Gav… > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >
