On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 17:19 +0000, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 11:19 AM, Florent Daigniere nextgens@freenetproje > ct.org wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 15:08 +0000, Ian wrote: > > > Well, it's an improvement over what we have now even if it is > > > incomplete :) > > > Just for clarity, what is the procedure for deploying > > improvements? > > > > Pushing them to the existing repository on a different branch. > > Travis > > will auto-build/deploy from there if the build succeeds. > > > > The list of authorized people/process hasn't changed; anyone not on > > the > > list has to send a pull request. > > > > Where is the list?
https://github.com/freenet/website/settings/collaboration > Any chance you can provide a top-down overview of the setup, or if > this is documented anywhere can you point me to it? Maybe I've just > been out-of-the-loop but I definitely don't have a good top-down > understanding of the setup. At least 2 people should have a good > enough understanding of this to admin it. > It's as simple as it can get: 1) Code lands on https://github.com/freenet/website/tree/2016-redesign 2) Travis runs https://travis-ci.org/freenet/website using https://github.com/freenet/website/blob/2016-redesign/.travis.yml that builds and deploy the website to an AWS s3 bucket Anyone with push access can change the travis config file and influence the build process. > > Now that it's live hopefully multiple people can fork it and start > > pushing improvements which we can review and merge. > > We should have an approval process for it - it would be ideal if we > > had staging where changes could be reviewed live before being pushed > > to production. > > That's the plan. When I get some time I will set it up (two branches, > deploying to two different buckets/FQDNs, like we used to have). > > I'm puzzled, when you said: > > I won't have time to do anything more for the foreseeable future. > > I assumed it meant that we couldn't expect you to do any more work on > this, did I misunderstand? > I have poorly expressed myself, what I meant is that I have little time and visibility on my calendar for the next few weeks... and that I currently don't have access to all the credentials I hold on behalf of FPI (I am abroad). > > Florent, if you won't have time to do anything for the foreseeable > > future, is there someone else familiar enough with how things are > set > > up that they can work on it? > > Right now there is still massive amounts of work to be done on the > content; IMHO a two step review process would be overkill for now... > > Ok, I agree that we should minimize red tape while there is still a > lot to be done. > > > It would be well worth spending some of our funding to hire an AWS > > expert to ensure everything is set up nicely and minimize the risk > of > > something like this happening in future. I have a good guy in mind > > (used to work for Amazon so very familiar with AWS). > > Thoughts? > > I don't think it would be. This happened because we weren't using AWS > yet. Our new setup is rock-solid and fairly standard: it's an S3 > bucket where the content is served by cloudfront. > > I was mostly motivated by the fact that I thought you said you > wouldn't be able to do any more, and yet you seem to be the only > person who knows how everything fits together. Please correct me if > I'm wrong, > > I just want to make sure we don't end up in a situation again where > something breaks and the only person who can fix it is unavailable. > If we can pay someone competent to help us to get to this point I > think it would be well worth it - but happy to discuss if you think > differently. > I am not the only person who can fix it, the bus-factor is catered for; Steve has all the credentials... as for the lack of documentation, it's lacking for both the legacy and "new" infrastructure. Feel free to start a page about it on the new wiki ;) Florent
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
