On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:53:06 +0200
Xavier Lamien <laxathom(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Are you taking into account the FAS format (user, sponsors,
> for the
Unless you guys don't intend to plug it to FAS.
Otherwise, that sounds reasonable.
I think initially we are not wanting to interface with fas directly.
We could revisit that I suppose... it might be nice to have groups in
fas update the cloud permissions, but I have no idea how hard that will
> +1 on this default. Which lead me to ask :
Does intance aims to be accessible from outside of the fpo network?
Yes. We have a class C of external IP's.
Of course there may be some instances that will not need to use
external ip's, but many will.
Right, however, we're not targeting the same user neither the same use
Or are you saying we could word something based on them?
Just something based on them, or related I guess.
However, I think we should more focus on security and critical bugs
affecting the instances and not just update for the fun. As said,
user can handle its updates itself.
Does this "private cloud" intend to replace the publictests.* system
in place in a near future?
Yes. we have already largely phased out public test systems in favor of
$application.dev instances for development of applications.
If we can work it, I'd love for our *dev instances to move to this as
well. I suspect many of them are idle a lot of the time, and it would
be great to have it so a dev could just bring one up, work on it, and
then snapshot/drop it.
I may have more questions following up.
Thanks for the input.