On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:05:48 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@redhat.com> wrote:
Apologies on the delayed response. I had been hoping to complete our evaluation of beaker before responding here but since that process is currently caught up in legal ... it might be a while. > With Beaker 0.15.1 due out soon, we'd like to upgrade > beaker.fedoraproject.org once the new version is available. > > At the moment, Dan Callaghan and I are admins for the Beaker instance, > while Raymond Mancy and Amit Saha are registered users of that > instance. However, we aren't admins for the actual *servers*, which > is what is needed in order to manage upgrades. > > We're happy to help manage the Fedora Beaker instance (including > upgrades), but when Tim last looked into that, it wasn't easy to give > us access to just the Beaker server and lab controllers without > giving us broader access to the rest of the Fedora infrastructure > systems (which we *don't* really want). The beaker server is currently grouped with the rest of the qa infrastructure (autoqa and a couple of other things), so it's not really everything but a bit more than just beaker. > I figure the next step is to file a ticket at > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ but the question is > which ticket to file: > > 1. File a ticket now to get at least Dan and myself (and preferably > Ray and Amit as well) sufficient access to handle Beaker upgrades for > beaker.fedoraproject.org. > > 2. Wait until 0.15.1 is available, and then file a ticket to get > beaker.fedoraproject.org updated. I'm fine with either direction for now. My hesitation on getting started with 1) is that having a beaker installation is still an evaluation for us. I have a hard time seeing things not working out but I also don't pretend to be clarvoyant :) If you guys are fine with putting work into something that will probably change (see comment below about ansible), I can get the ball rolling to separate the ACL for the beaker server and get you all the access you need. Otherwise, I can just apply the updates myself. Let me know if you all have a preference on which route to take right now. > Regardless of which we do, we should probably create a page on the > Fedora wiki and/or a doc in > http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/infra/docs/ to explain the > Fedora Beaker instance's existence and how it gets used, managed and > upgraded. Eventually, I want to ansible-ize the beaker server. I set it up as a one-off but I dislike having production machines that can't be quickly re-deployed. Not sure if you guys are interested in working on the initial playbook, though. Either way, that doesn't have to happen right now. Thanks, Tim > Thoughts? > > Regards, > Nick. >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel