On 12 November 2016 at 14:31, John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
The point is for us to be able to leverage the larger user base! > There's ways we > can handle it though - maybe add very obvious environment badging and not > using similar data sets. I already touched on that. Replacing "Permalink" and using a URL that is obviously a test host. I think it is important that we can use the same data, otherwise it reduces the usefulness. But we could rename the lists, e.g. change apache.org to apache-test.invalid or some such. > 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… >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >>
