Re: [Mailman-Developers] Rolling releases for Container Images and Funding Campaign for Mailman
On Nov 12, 2017, at 11:06, Simon Hannawrote: > Scenario: Core changes something about rest that is backwards incompatible. > The change is commited to master. The REST API is versioned, so it would be a bug to introduce a backward incompatibility in the same API version. That’s why for example a new API version was introduced to handle the UUID data type change. There was no way to make that backward compatible, so we had to bump the API version, but we didn’t remove the old API version so clients written against that still work. Adding a new API generally doesn’t require bumping the API version. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
[Mailman-Developers] Rolling releases for Container Images and Funding Campaign for Mailman
These images are built using git-heads *only* if they are passing our test suite and are re-generated weekly. You should be aware that while all these components are tested with their individual test suites, their combination might sometimes not be stable. This will get you updates/bug-fixes much faster :) This contradicts what you said in my merge request for Postorius https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/merge_requests/232#note_43388756 You either use released versions, or make sure that the master branches are always compatible. You can't have both with the current development model. Not exactly, I still believe all our git-heads should be compatible with released (i.e. stable) versions of dependencies, regardless of the fact that we maintain those dependencies. Also, there is at least one test per-project which tests with git-heads of dependencies we maintain, so that we know if we make any incompatible changes. I am not sure what in the current development model prevents us to do both? The story for container images is different than testing with git-heads. We need better integration testing for the entire suite to be stable in conjunction, rather than independently. In fact, containers might be the perfect way to actually do the integration testing. Scenario: Core changes something about rest that is backwards incompatible. The change is commited to master. Since your containers use the master branches, all future builds will fail until mailmanclient and postorius/hyperkitty. If you want to always have Postorius (and others) compatible with the latest release of master, development for Postorius will be a Pain, because you can't use the master branch of mailman for testing and quick changes. Also your containers and all integration tests that can be done with them will always fail. Until you fix Postorius and the other clients... So why not just have the master branches always compatible and make life easier for developers. I don't see a good reason why you want to do it the other way round... Any bug in core that affects Postorius will also just remain there until you release a new version of core. If you really really want to have it your way, there have to be more frequent releases. - Improve the container images to work with new micro-services architecture, to achieve scaling and redundancy in services. The current bottleneck is the rest api from core. IMO bulk actions, filtering and sorting should be added there before trying to have multiple postorius/hyperkitty instances serving the same core... I didn't say they will be served from the same core ;-) Yes, the Core's API can be further improved to be more efficient. But that doesn't prevent us from scaling. I understand there are issues around multiple instances of containers, but I have ideas to get around most of them. I just don't want that people that have issues with big installations get the answer: We know of that issue, please deploy Mailman on X containers/machines as a workaround ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] Rolling releases for Container Images and Funding Campaign for Mailman
On Nov 8, 2017, at 04:38, Simon Hannawrote: > > On 11/08/2017 12:03 AM, Abhilash Raj wrote: >> New images are available on quay.io and, moving forward, the rest of >> the image builds will also be moved to Quay[4][5]. > Since docker deployment is currently the recommended install, with manual > installs using the master branches for "experts" I wonder why you are using > Quay. > It looks like it's a non-free system. Why use Quay but refuse to use a > non-free translation system like transifex? Is there a free (software) equivalent to Quay? Caveat: I don’t know anything about Quay, so I don’t know what services and advantages it provides. > If this campaign succeeds, here is a road map of what I intend to get >> done: > Sounds great, what is the limit where the campaign succeeds? What will happen > to the funds if it doesn’t? The funds all go to the GNU Mailman project’s FSF donation fund. A portion of every donation goes to the FSF, and the Mailman Steering Committee ultimately decides what to do with what’s left in our account. In the past we’ve used it sponsor GSoC students coming to Pycon sprints. > To be honest, I don't think we should all in on containers. > Yes they are nice, but I guess most people would prefer distro packages. > Even if people want containers, I for instance would prefer plain > systemd-nspawn There are folks working on Debian packages. I’m not aware of similar efforts for other distro ecosystems. But I don’t think it’s all or nothing, and it does make sense for us (the GNU Mailman project) to support containers to help with adoption, experimentation, and deployment, while working with distro volunteers to package the code up for those platforms. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
Re: [Mailman-Developers] Rolling releases for Container Images and Funding Campaign for Mailman
On 11/08/2017 12:03 AM, Abhilash Raj wrote: New images are available on quay.io and, moving forward, the rest of the image builds will also be moved to Quay[4][5]. Since docker deployment is currently the recommended install, with manual installs using the master branches for "experts" I wonder why you are using Quay. It looks like it's a non-free system. Why use Quay but refuse to use a non-free translation system like transifex? These images are built using git-heads *only* if they are passing our test suite and are re-generated weekly. You should be aware that while all these components are tested with their individual test suites, their combination might sometimes not be stable. This will get you updates/bug-fixes much faster :) This contradicts what you said in my merge request for Postorius https://gitlab.com/mailman/postorius/merge_requests/232#note_43388756 You either use released versions, or make sure that the master branches are always compatible. You can't have both with the current development model. If this campaign succeeds, here is a road map of what I intend to get done: Sounds great, what is the limit where the campaign succeeds? What will happen to the funds if it doesn't? - Add Admin Dashboard project from GSoC 2014 (maybe?) Didn't find anything using google. What is that project about? - Add better testing of container images and provide deployment instructions for Kubernetes & Docker Swarm To be honest, I don't think we should all in on containers. Yes they are nice, but I guess most people would prefer distro packages. Even if people want containers, I for instance would prefer plain systemd-nspawn - Improve the container images to work with new micro-services architecture, to achieve scaling and redundancy in services. The current bottleneck is the rest api from core. IMO bulk actions, filtering and sorting should be added there before trying to have multiple postorius/hyperkitty instances serving the same core... ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
[Mailman-Developers] Rolling releases for Container Images and Funding Campaign for Mailman
Hi Everyone, As you all know I have been working on container images for Mailman 3. We now have a new "rolling" tag for both mailman-core and mailman-web images. These images have latest source installed for every Mailman component. You can find more information about them on the website [3]. New images are available on quay.io and, moving forward, the rest of the image builds will also be moved to Quay[4][5]. These images are built using git-heads *only* if they are passing our test suite and are re-generated weekly. You should be aware that while all these components are tested with their individual test suites, their combination might sometimes not be stable. This will get you updates/bug-fixes much faster :) As most of you already know, Mailman 3 is the new and improved version with extra features, better security and much better architecture. We released Mailman Suite 3.0 in April 2015 and have come a long ways since then. Mailman Suite 3.1, release May 2016, was aimed to provide feature-parity with Mailman 2.x series and we think we _almost_ hit that goal. Apart from no monthly password reminders, Mailman 3 has a much better Administrator/User interface, REST API for scripting, a really awesome archiver, support for multiple domains, support for external plugins, support for SSO/social login and so much more! I love working on Mailman and would enjoy being able to do so full time for next 6-8 weeks. Mailman 3 is not very far from becoming the default version everyone would use, but it still needs some work to get there. I need help from you, the users of Mailman, to get us there. If you or your organization would like to move to (or, already moved to) Mailman 3, I urge you to donate[1] to us. There are options to donate using Credit Card, Paypal, Bitcoin, Wire Transfer (of any currency), Check and money order. If this campaign succeeds, here is a road map of what I intend to get done: - Move Django apps(UI/Archiver) to Python 3 (or bilingual) - Fork `mailman import` command to provide an upgrade path to Mailman 3.x from Mailman 2.x - Fix MySQL compatibility in Core - Changes in Postorius: - Add support for missing options that are already exposed in Core’s API - e.g. Support for setting templates - Find the commonly used options that are not exposed in Core, add them to Core's API and add to Postorius - Add Admin Dashboard project from GSoC 2014 (maybe?) - Add better testing of container images and provide deployment instructions for Kubernetes & Docker Swarm - Improve the container images to work with new micro-services architecture, to achieve scaling and redundancy in services. - Administrator/User documentation for Postorius & Mailman - (optional) Fork [mmcli](https://github.com/rajeevs1992/mailmancli) project from Rajeev, fix if there is anything missing and add it as an additional command line tool to work with Mailman Core. Maybe pull it under Mailman umbrella. Except for these, if there is something more important that is preventing the adoption of Mailman 3 from your end, we can discuss them. I'd like to mention that I have been working on Mailman 3 for quite some time now and I intend to implement every single item on the list. You donations would help it get done much sooner, hopefully in time for 3.2 release schedule (at PyCon US 2018). You can follow the progress of this campaign here[2]. [1]: https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1=22 [2]: https://wiki.list.org/x/17892025 [3]: https://asynchronous.in/docker-mailman/#rolling-releases [4]: https://quay.io/repository/maxking/mailman-web [5]: https://quay.io/repository/maxking/mailman-core -- Abhilash Raj maxk...@asynchronous.in ___ Mailman-Developers mailing list Mailman-Developers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-developers/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9