Fedora Insight testing

[Robyn Bergeron]

I've done some testing this morning on
publictest6.fedoraproject.org/zikula with some of the test criteria
listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Insight_Testing.

In short - newly created users in fakeFAS (pt3/accounts) are getting
added to the users group in zikula when they log in for the first
time, but ALL users - and this includes ALL standard users, ones NOT
in the Administration group, not just New Users - get a 403 error.  I
recall that we've had this error in the past, but I can't find the
ticket for it. (I thought it had been fixed.)

Most of the details are in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Insight_Testing.  In short - I
can't test any of the items related to comments being moderated for
first-time posters who are registered users, or the automatic approval
of second-time poster comments - since I can't log in and do anything
with anyone who is a standard user.  We need to resolve the 403 issue
problem ASAP for testing to move forward.

-Robyn

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Robyn Bergeron <robyn.bergeron(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  I've done some testing this morning on
>  publictest6.fedoraproject.org/zikula with some of the test criteria
>  listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Insight_Testing.
>
>  In short - newly created users in fakeFAS (pt3/accounts) are getting
>  added to the users group in zikula when they log in for the first
>  time, but ALL users - and this includes ALL standard users, ones NOT
>  in the Administration group, not just New Users - get a 403 error.  I
>  recall that we've had this error in the past, but I can't find the
>  ticket for it. (I thought it had been fixed.)
>
>  Most of the details are in
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Insight_Testing.  In short - I
>  can't test any of the items related to comments being moderated for
>  first-time posters who are registered users, or the automatic approval
>  of second-time poster comments - since I can't log in and do anything
>  with anyone who is a standard user.  We need to resolve the 403 issue
>  problem ASAP for testing to move forward. 
Thanks Robyn -- Smooge and I are looking at it right now. First we
need to figure out how to enable full logging so that we can see
what's happening to generate the 403.

Hopefully Matheo should be joining us shortly.

Paul

[Mateo TibaPalacios]

Ok
AuthFAS is finally working.
It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|

In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to
add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula
because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme
(it was an old copy anyways).

In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the
current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old
stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by
convenience or not.

About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff
(designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more.
I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)

Greetings

Mateo
Mis principios... son mis fines

[Paul W. Frields]

On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
>  Ok
>  AuthFAS is finally working.
>  It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-| 
Glad to hear you found it!
 
>  In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were
> nothing to
>  add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula
>  because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme
>  (it was an old copy anyways). 
So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master
branch?

>  In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the
>  current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old
>  stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by
>  convenience or not. 
Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful
commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from
the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the
fedora-insight-theme git repo?

>  About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual
> stuff
>  (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more.
>  I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
>  
>  Greetings 
Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye
folks have some input to give here.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com

[Drak]

Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments.  We released a new
version of EZComments 2.0.0.  Can you notify the maintainer please?  It
would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or,
possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with out
CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/).  All we need to do is add an XML build
file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it can
be all sorted out automatically.

Regards,

Drak


On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
>  > Ok
>  > AuthFAS is finally working.
>  > It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
>
>  Glad to hear you found it!
>
>  > In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to
>  > add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula
>  > because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme
>  > (it was an old copy anyways).
>
>  So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master
>  branch?
>
>  > In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the
>  > current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old
>  > stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by
>  > convenience or not.
>
>  Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful
>  commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from
>  the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the
>  fedora-insight-theme git repo?
>
>  > About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff
>  > (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more.
>  > I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
>  >
>  > Greetings
>
>  Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye
>  folks have some input to give here.
>
>  --
>  Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
>   gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
>   http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
>           Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
>  _______________________________________________
>  logistics mailing list
>  logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>

[Drak]

Forgot the link:
http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-compon...

Regards,

<http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-compon...
Drak

On 7 June 2010 22:47, Drak <drak(a)zikula.org&gt; wrote:

>  Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments.  We released
> a new
>  version of EZComments 2.0.0.  Can you notify the maintainer please?  It
>  would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or,
>  possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with out
>  CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/).  All we need to do is add an XML build
>  file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it can
>  be all sorted out automatically.
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Drak
>
>
>  On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
> > > Ok
> > > AuthFAS is finally working.
> > > It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
> >
> > Glad to hear you found it!
> >
> > > In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to
> > > add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula
> > > because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme
> > > (it was an old copy anyways).
> >
> > So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master
> > branch?
> >
> > > In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the
> > > current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old
> > > stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by
> > > convenience or not.
> >
> > Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful
> > commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from
> > the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the
> > fedora-insight-theme git repo?
> >
> > > About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff
> > > (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more.
> > > I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
> > >
> > > Greetings
> >
> > Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye
> > folks have some input to give here.
> >
> > --
> > Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
> >  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> >  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> >          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > logistics mailing list
> > logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
> >
>
>

[Paul W. Frields]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:49:12PM +0545, Drak wrote:
>     Forgot the
>    
> link: [1]http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-compone...
>     Regards,
>     Drak 
We need Zikula 1.2.3 before we can use EZComments 2.0.0, according to
this:

http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-compon...

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com

[Drak]

On 8 June 2010 03:10, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  We need Zikula 1.2.3 before we can use EZComments 2.0.0, according
> to
>  this:
>
>
>  http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-compon...
>  
Is there any particular reason Fedora isnt using 1.2.3 yet?

Drak

[David Nalley]

2010/6/7 Drak <drak(a)zikula.org&gt;:
>  On 8 June 2010 03:10, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt;
> wrote:
> >
> > We need Zikula 1.2.3 before we can use EZComments 2.0.0, according to
> > this:
> >
> >
> >
> http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-compon...
>
>  Is there any particular reason Fedora isnt using 1.2.3 yet? 

I was hoping to get testing on it - it sat in updates-testing for 24 days.
I pushed to updates last night.

1.2.3 should be in updates-testing for EPEL

[Paul W. Frields]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:49:12PM +0545, Drak wrote:
>     Forgot the
>    
> link: [1]http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-compone...
>     Regards,
>     Drak 
Drak,

http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/browser/tags/EZComments_2.0.0/pnjavascr...

I visited that site, which lists only "(C) 2003-2010" for licensing
rights.  The aforementioned file no longer exists there.  Can you
point me to a public URL that shows the licensing for this file?  (And
hopefully the file itself?)

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com

[Drak]

On 9 June 2010 06:06:50 UTC+5:45, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:

>  http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/browser/tags/EZComments_2.0.0/pnjavascr...
>
>  I visited that site, which lists only "(C) 2003-2010" for licensing
>  rights.  The aforementioned file no longer exists there.  Can you
>  point me to a public URL that shows the licensing for this file?  (And
>  hopefully the file itself?) 

I followed the version history all the way back to the file inclusion 5
years ago :-P

http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/changeset/216/trunk/EZComments/modules/...

There never way anything in the header.

I checked the URL at archive.org and found this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050426083521/http://www.dustindiaz.com/archi...

the main domain still exists http://www.dustindiaz.com/ then I found this:

http://www.dustindiaz.com/check-one-check-all-javascript/ which looks like
the script but there doesnt appear to be any license I can see.

Regards,

Drak
<http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/changeset/216/trunk/EZComments/modules/...

[David Nalley]

010/6/8 Drak <drak(a)zikula.org&gt;:
>  On 9 June 2010 06:06:50 UTC+5:45, Paul W. Frields
> <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt;
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/browser/tags/EZComments_2.0.0/pnjavascr...
> > I visited that site, which lists only "(C) 2003-2010" for licensing
> > rights.  The aforementioned file no longer exists there.  Can you
> > point me to a public URL that shows the licensing for this file?  (And
> > hopefully the file itself?)
>
>  I followed the version history all the way back to the file inclusion 5
>  years ago :-P
>
> http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/changeset/216/trunk/EZComments/modules/...
>  There never way anything in the header.
>  I checked the URL at archive.org and found this:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20050426083521/http://www.dustindiaz.com/archi...
>  the main domain still exists http://www.dustindiaz.com/ then I found this:
>  http://www.dustindiaz.com/check-one-check-all-javascript/ which looks like
>  the script but there doesnt appear to be any license I can see.
>  Regards,
>  Drak
>  

No license means that Copyright is the default - and we need to strip
this out of the zikula we ship and are using.


It also means, that sans an explicit license Zikula, and by extension
Fedora for distributing it are violating copyright on this piece of
code.

[Drak]

On 9 June 2010 06:39, David Nalley <david(a)gnsa.us&gt; wrote:

>  No license means that Copyright is the default - and we need to
> strip
>  this out of the zikula we ship and are using.
>
>  It also means, that sans an explicit license Zikula, and by extension
>  Fedora for distributing it are violating copyright on this piece of
>  code. 

Sure.  Should be easy to swap out with something else, it's just checkbox
toggle, we can find a replacement or write something in a flash I guess.
FYI - EZComments is not a Zikula product, it's just a 3rd party module -
anyhow, we'll sort it.

Drak

[Drak]

On 9 June 2010 06:46, Drak <drak(a)zikula.org&gt; wrote:

>  On 9 June 2010 06:39, David Nalley <david(a)gnsa.us&gt; wrote:
>
> > No license means that Copyright is the default - and we need to strip
> > this out of the zikula we ship and are using.
> >
>  
EZComments js script has been swapped out with an own solution.  You can
re-download here:
http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-compon...

Please re-download the entire package because some templates had to be
altered for the new js syntax.

Regards,

Drak

[Paul W. Frields]

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 02:25:09PM +0545, Drak wrote:
>     On 9 June 2010 06:46, Drak <[1]drak(a)zikula.org&gt; wrote:
>  
>       On 9 June 2010 06:39, David Nalley <[2]david(a)gnsa.us&gt; wrote:
>  
>         No license means that Copyright is the default - and we need to strip
>         this out of the zikula we ship and are using.
>  
>     EZComments js script has been swapped out with an own solution.  You can
>     re-download
>    
> here:[3]http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-componen...
>     Please re-download the entire package because some templates had to be
>     altered for the new js syntax.
>     Regards,
>     Drak 
Just out of curiosity, do third parties often switch tag antecedents
in this way?  Last night if I recall correctly '2.0.0' -> r737, but
today it's r741.  Won't this alter other downstream consumers of that
module?  That's up to the EZComment developers of course, it just
seems like an unusual release management process.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com

[Drak]

On 9 June 2010 19:35, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Just out of curiosity, do third parties often switch tag antecedents
>  in this way?  Last night if I recall correctly '2.0.0' -> r737, but
>  today it's r741.  Won't this alter other downstream consumers of that
>  module?  That's up to the EZComment developers of course, it just
>  seems like an unusual release management process. 

Zikula project isnt responsible for the module, it's 3rd party so we don't
have full control over the module release process - I think this was just an
exception because there is uncertainty over licensing/copyright ownership so
they panicked.  The diff is on just two files, 1 to switch out the js for
own solution, and 2 to update one template that uses the JS references.
 This is another reason to get everything you guys use into CI, then the
build and release process is automated.

Regards,

Drak

[Robyn Bergeron]

2010/6/7 Drak <drak(a)zikula.org&gt;:
>  Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments.  We released
> a new
>  version of EZComments 2.0.0.  Can you notify the maintainer please?  It
>  would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or,
>  possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with out
>  CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/).  All we need to do is add an XML build
>  file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it can
>  be all sorted out automatically. 
For reference, the EZComments ticket in fedora:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2207

Getting us to EZComments 2.0 appears to be the following process
(please excuse my non-coder descriptions, folks, and I may be wrong
about some / all of this):
* Upgrade to another version of php (I'm not clear on all the details
here, but I'm pretty sure this is on the list.)
* Upgrade to zikula 1.2.3
* Upgrade / add in EZComments 2.0 module (this may be part of zikula
1.2.3, I don't know, and can't tell offhand)
* Patch back any changes made over the weekend WRT AuthFAS stuff, etc.
* Copy over our existing settings
* Hope we don't have anything customized that is tied to existing
version of zikula - if we do, then deal with that as well.
* Test, test, test functionality.

I'm guessing that that process would take at least a week - probably
more, particularly given that a number of us are going to be at an
event this Wednesday - Sunday/Monday. Tuesday is our 6/15 deadline for
having a functional version of Fedora Insight up and running.
(Incidentally - I may be entirely overestimating the time for
upgrading.  I don't know if it's possible to throw together something
in the next day or two so that we can test this functionality in 1.2.3
w/EZComments 2.0 on a publictest machine.)

I didn't see any ticket related to this phenomenon in the list of all
tickets, open and closed, for EZComments.  I can file a ticket -
albeit against EZComments 1.6.1. I'm wondering, however, if this is
something that works properly in EZComments 2.0 - either "just works,"
or was a bug that was never documented and is fixed, etc.  I've asked
in the forums for some help / confirmation / verification that this
isn't user error -
http://community.zikula.org/module-Forum-viewtopic-topic-57991.htm -
if it's not user error, I'll file something.

Not to jump the gun on any feedback I might get there - but I expect
we're going to wind up in one of four situations:

1: Someone gloriously tells Robyn that this is an easy configuration tweak.
2: We get confirmation that an upgrade will solve our problems; we
upgrade over the next week, problem is fixed.
3: We upgrade over the next week and find out that this is still an
issue.  We'll need to file a ticket against EZComments 2.0, and wait
for a fix.
4: We get confirmation that an upgrade will not solve our problems,
and we need a fix.  We'll then have to decide if / how long we want to
wait, or if we want to modify our moderation requirements.

I would like to avoid Situation #3 altogether.  I'm not a fan of
asking people to commit time, in an emergency fashion during a
terribly busy week, to a solution that may not solve anything at all.
IMO, we need to get answers that put us in Situations 1 or 2 (or even
4) by, I'd say, Wednesday (Paul, are we moving the FI meeting to back
one day to Wednesday, as some of us are out Thursday?). If we do not
have answers, I suggest we make some decisions on Wednesday.

Decision options include:
* How long will upgrade realistically take - including testing, etc.?
(This is more of a need an answer than decision, but..)
* Assess whether we want to rethink moderation - we could temporarily
not have moderation, and use spam filters, etc.  Or, moderate
-everything-.  If we're willing to make accommodations here, we could
upgrade and then hope it works, if not, plan M (modify moderation).
Basically - is this a blocker?
* Moving out deadline to accompany possibility that we will need a
fix, that upgrades will not be smooth, and give the lot of us on
travel a few days of breathing room.
* Put FI on hold and go back to the drawing board.

In the meantime, I will be keeping my fingers crossed that this is a
configuration error or something that can be confirmed as working in
EZComments 2.0. :D  I'd also add that some experienced eyeballs
looking at the existing configuration settings would be welcomed, to
make sure I'm not insane (this has been known to happen... pretty much
daily....)

-Robyn

>  Regards,
>
>  Drak
>
>  On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
> > > Ok
> > > AuthFAS is finally working.
> > > It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
> >
> > Glad to hear you found it!
> >
> > > In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to
> > > add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula
> > > because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme
> > > (it was an old copy anyways).
> >
> > So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master
> > branch?
> >
> > > In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the
> > > current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old
> > > stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by
> > > convenience or not.
> >
> > Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful
> > commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from
> > the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the
> > fedora-insight-theme git repo?
> >
> > > About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff
> > > (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more.
> > > I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
> > >
> > > Greetings
> >
> > Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye
> > folks have some input to give here.
> >
> > --
> > Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
> >  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> >  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> >          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > logistics mailing list
> > logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  logistics mailing list
>  logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>

[Drak]

Robyn,

You do not need to upgrade your version of server PHP at all.  As I said,
Zikula 1.2.3 actually works with PHP 4.3.0 or greater - there was a mistake
on the download page which I have corrected.

The upgrade process for Zikula 1.2.3 is just a matter of
a) copy new files
b) run upgrade.php
c) delete install*, upgrade.php

This will not affect your AuthFAS at all.

To upgrade EZComments, simply copy the new module files, then go to the
admin -> modules ->regenerate list, then click upgrade on the EZComments
module.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Drak




On 8 June 2010 13:27, Robyn Bergeron <robyn.bergeron(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  2010/6/7 Drak <drak(a)zikula.org&gt;:
>  > Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments.  We released a
>  new
>  > version of EZComments 2.0.0.  Can you notify the maintainer please?  It
>  > would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or,
>  > possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with
>  out
>  > CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/).  All we need to do is add an XML
>  build
>  > file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it
>  can
>  > be all sorted out automatically.
>
>  For reference, the EZComments ticket in fedora:
>  https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2207
>
>  Getting us to EZComments 2.0 appears to be the following process
>  (please excuse my non-coder descriptions, folks, and I may be wrong
>  about some / all of this):
>  * Upgrade to another version of php (I'm not clear on all the details
>  here, but I'm pretty sure this is on the list.)
>  * Upgrade to zikula 1.2.3
>  * Upgrade / add in EZComments 2.0 module (this may be part of zikula
>  1.2.3, I don't know, and can't tell offhand)
>  * Patch back any changes made over the weekend WRT AuthFAS stuff, etc.
>  * Copy over our existing settings
>  * Hope we don't have anything customized that is tied to existing
>  version of zikula - if we do, then deal with that as well.
>  * Test, test, test functionality.
>
>  I'm guessing that that process would take at least a week - probably
>  more, particularly given that a number of us are going to be at an
>  event this Wednesday - Sunday/Monday. Tuesday is our 6/15 deadline for
>  having a functional version of Fedora Insight up and running.
>  (Incidentally - I may be entirely overestimating the time for
>  upgrading.  I don't know if it's possible to throw together something
>  in the next day or two so that we can test this functionality in 1.2.3
>  w/EZComments 2.0 on a publictest machine.)
>
>  I didn't see any ticket related to this phenomenon in the list of all
>  tickets, open and closed, for EZComments.  I can file a ticket -
>  albeit against EZComments 1.6.1. I'm wondering, however, if this is
>  something that works properly in EZComments 2.0 - either "just works,"
>  or was a bug that was never documented and is fixed, etc.  I've asked
>  in the forums for some help / confirmation / verification that this
>  isn't user error -
>  http://community.zikula.org/module-Forum-viewtopic-topic-57991.htm -
>  if it's not user error, I'll file something.
>
>  Not to jump the gun on any feedback I might get there - but I expect
>  we're going to wind up in one of four situations:
>
>  1: Someone gloriously tells Robyn that this is an easy configuration tweak.
>  2: We get confirmation that an upgrade will solve our problems; we
>  upgrade over the next week, problem is fixed.
>  3: We upgrade over the next week and find out that this is still an
>  issue.  We'll need to file a ticket against EZComments 2.0, and wait
>  for a fix.
>  4: We get confirmation that an upgrade will not solve our problems,
>  and we need a fix.  We'll then have to decide if / how long we want to
>  wait, or if we want to modify our moderation requirements.
>
>  I would like to avoid Situation #3 altogether.  I'm not a fan of
>  asking people to commit time, in an emergency fashion during a
>  terribly busy week, to a solution that may not solve anything at all.
>  IMO, we need to get answers that put us in Situations 1 or 2 (or even
>  4) by, I'd say, Wednesday (Paul, are we moving the FI meeting to back
>  one day to Wednesday, as some of us are out Thursday?). If we do not
>  have answers, I suggest we make some decisions on Wednesday.
>
>  Decision options include:
>  * How long will upgrade realistically take - including testing, etc.?
>  (This is more of a need an answer than decision, but..)
>  * Assess whether we want to rethink moderation - we could temporarily
>  not have moderation, and use spam filters, etc.  Or, moderate
>  -everything-.  If we're willing to make accommodations here, we could
>  upgrade and then hope it works, if not, plan M (modify moderation).
>  Basically - is this a blocker?
>  * Moving out deadline to accompany possibility that we will need a
>  fix, that upgrades will not be smooth, and give the lot of us on
>  travel a few days of breathing room.
>  * Put FI on hold and go back to the drawing board.
>
>  In the meantime, I will be keeping my fingers crossed that this is a
>  configuration error or something that can be confirmed as working in
>  EZComments 2.0. :D  I'd also add that some experienced eyeballs
>  looking at the existing configuration settings would be welcomed, to
>  make sure I'm not insane (this has been known to happen... pretty much
>  daily....)
>
>  -Robyn
>
>  > Regards,
>  >
>  > Drak
>  >
>  > On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  >>
>  >> On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
>  >> > Ok
>  >> > AuthFAS is finally working.
>  >> > It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
>  >>
>  >> Glad to hear you found it!
>  >>
>  >> > In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to
>  >> > add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula
>  >> > because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme
>  >> > (it was an old copy anyways).
>  >>
>  >> So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master
>  >> branch?
>  >>
>  >> > In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the
>  >> > current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old
>  >> > stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by
>  >> > convenience or not.
>  >>
>  >> Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful
>  >> commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from
>  >> the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the
>  >> fedora-insight-theme git repo?
>  >>
>  >> > About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff
>  >> > (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more.
>  >> > I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
>  >> >
>  >> > Greetings
>  >>
>  >> Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye
>  >> folks have some input to give here.
>  >>
>  >> --
>  >> Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
>  >>  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
>  >>  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
>  >>          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
>  >> _______________________________________________
>  >> logistics mailing list
>  >> logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > logistics mailing list
>  > logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  logistics mailing list
>  logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>

[Robyn Bergeron]

2010/6/8 Drak <drak(a)zikula.org&gt;:
>  Robyn,
>  You do not need to upgrade your version of server PHP at all.  As I said,
>  Zikula 1.2.3 actually works with PHP 4.3.0 or greater - there was a mistake
>  on the download page which I have corrected. 
My mistake. Sorry!

>  The upgrade process for Zikula 1.2.3 is just a matter of
>  a) copy new files
>  b) run upgrade.php
>  c) delete install*, upgrade.php
>  This will not affect your AuthFAS at all.
>  To upgrade EZComments, simply copy the new module files, then go to the
>  admin -> modules ->regenerate list, then click upgrade on the EZComments
>  module.
>  Hope this helps.
>  Regards,
>  Drak
>  
Perhaps someone can clear some things up for me before I stick my foot
further into my mouth. :)

* How long will this upgrade take us (not the physical typing of
things and copying files, but builds / packaging / whatever magic
needs to hapen) - can we get this up and running by Wednesday, Friday,
?, for basic testing to see if this will fix the EZComments issue?
* When 1.2.3 goes into staging and/or production - would we really be
installing an old version, then upgrading to 1.2.3, following the
steps above? Or would it be advisable to install 1.2.3 from scratch?
If so, would we want to just install 1.2.3 from scratch in a new
instance on pt6,  so that we can have a documented, repeatable
process?

-Robyn


>  On 8 June 2010 13:27, Robyn Bergeron <robyn.bergeron(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> > 2010/6/7 Drak <drak(a)zikula.org&gt;:
> > > Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments.  We released a
> > > new
> > > version of EZComments 2.0.0.  Can you notify the maintainer please?  It
> > > would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or,
> > > possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with
> > > out
> > > CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/).  All we need to do is add an XML
> > > build
> > > file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it
> > > can
> > > be all sorted out automatically.
> >
> > For reference, the EZComments ticket in fedora:
> > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2207
> >
> > Getting us to EZComments 2.0 appears to be the following process
> > (please excuse my non-coder descriptions, folks, and I may be wrong
> > about some / all of this):
> > * Upgrade to another version of php (I'm not clear on all the details
> > here, but I'm pretty sure this is on the list.)
> > * Upgrade to zikula 1.2.3
> > * Upgrade / add in EZComments 2.0 module (this may be part of zikula
> > 1.2.3, I don't know, and can't tell offhand)
> > * Patch back any changes made over the weekend WRT AuthFAS stuff, etc.
> > * Copy over our existing settings
> > * Hope we don't have anything customized that is tied to existing
> > version of zikula - if we do, then deal with that as well.
> > * Test, test, test functionality.
> >
> > I'm guessing that that process would take at least a week - probably
> > more, particularly given that a number of us are going to be at an
> > event this Wednesday - Sunday/Monday. Tuesday is our 6/15 deadline for
> > having a functional version of Fedora Insight up and running.
> > (Incidentally - I may be entirely overestimating the time for
> > upgrading.  I don't know if it's possible to throw together something
> > in the next day or two so that we can test this functionality in 1.2.3
> > w/EZComments 2.0 on a publictest machine.)
> >
> > I didn't see any ticket related to this phenomenon in the list of all
> > tickets, open and closed, for EZComments.  I can file a ticket -
> > albeit against EZComments 1.6.1. I'm wondering, however, if this is
> > something that works properly in EZComments 2.0 - either "just works,"
> > or was a bug that was never documented and is fixed, etc.  I've asked
> > in the forums for some help / confirmation / verification that this
> > isn't user error -
> > http://community.zikula.org/module-Forum-viewtopic-topic-57991.htm -
> > if it's not user error, I'll file something.
> >
> > Not to jump the gun on any feedback I might get there - but I expect
> > we're going to wind up in one of four situations:
> >
> > 1: Someone gloriously tells Robyn that this is an easy configuration
> > tweak.
> > 2: We get confirmation that an upgrade will solve our problems; we
> > upgrade over the next week, problem is fixed.
> > 3: We upgrade over the next week and find out that this is still an
> > issue.  We'll need to file a ticket against EZComments 2.0, and wait
> > for a fix.
> > 4: We get confirmation that an upgrade will not solve our problems,
> > and we need a fix.  We'll then have to decide if / how long we want to
> > wait, or if we want to modify our moderation requirements.
> >
> > I would like to avoid Situation #3 altogether.  I'm not a fan of
> > asking people to commit time, in an emergency fashion during a
> > terribly busy week, to a solution that may not solve anything at all.
> > IMO, we need to get answers that put us in Situations 1 or 2 (or even
> > 4) by, I'd say, Wednesday (Paul, are we moving the FI meeting to back
> > one day to Wednesday, as some of us are out Thursday?). If we do not
> > have answers, I suggest we make some decisions on Wednesday.
> >
> > Decision options include:
> > * How long will upgrade realistically take - including testing, etc.?
> > (This is more of a need an answer than decision, but..)
> > * Assess whether we want to rethink moderation - we could temporarily
> > not have moderation, and use spam filters, etc.  Or, moderate
> > -everything-.  If we're willing to make accommodations here, we could
> > upgrade and then hope it works, if not, plan M (modify moderation).
> > Basically - is this a blocker?
> > * Moving out deadline to accompany possibility that we will need a
> > fix, that upgrades will not be smooth, and give the lot of us on
> > travel a few days of breathing room.
> > * Put FI on hold and go back to the drawing board.
> >
> > In the meantime, I will be keeping my fingers crossed that this is a
> > configuration error or something that can be confirmed as working in
> > EZComments 2.0. :D  I'd also add that some experienced eyeballs
> > looking at the existing configuration settings would be welcomed, to
> > make sure I'm not insane (this has been known to happen... pretty much
> > daily....)
> >
> > -Robyn
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Drak
> > >
> > > On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
> > >> > Ok
> > >> > AuthFAS is finally working.
> > >> > It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID
> :-|
> > >>
> > >> Glad to hear you found it!
> > >>
> > >> > In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were
> nothing
> > >> > to
> > >> > add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula
> > >> > because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme
> > >> > (it was an old copy anyways).
> > >>
> > >> So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master
> > >> branch?
> > >>
> > >> > In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the
> > >> > current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old
> > >> > stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by
> > >> > convenience or not.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful
> > >> commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from
> > >> the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the
> > >> fedora-insight-theme git repo?
> > >>
> > >> > About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff
> > >> > (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more.
> > >> > I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality
> ;-)
> > >> >
> > >> > Greetings
> > >>
> > >> Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye
> > >> folks have some input to give here.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
> > >>  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> > >>  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> > >>          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> logistics mailing list
> > >> logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > logistics mailing list
> > > logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > logistics mailing list
> > logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  logistics mailing list
>  logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>

[Drak]

On 8 June 2010 14:06, Robyn Bergeron <robyn.bergeron(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  > The upgrade process for Zikula 1.2.3 is just a matter of
>  > a) copy new files
>  > b) run upgrade.php
>  > c) delete install*, upgrade.php
>  > This will not affect your AuthFAS at all.
>  > To upgrade EZComments, simply copy the new module files, then go to the
>  > admin -> modules ->regenerate list, then click upgrade on the EZComments
>
>  Perhaps someone can clear some things up for me before I stick my foot
>  further into my mouth. :)
>  
Well, I dont know the overhead of your .rpm creation process, but upgrading
a site will take 5 minutes.


>  * How long will this upgrade take us (not the physical typing of
>  things and copying files, but builds / packaging / whatever magic
>  needs to hapen) - can we get this up and running by Wednesday, Friday,
>  ?, for basic testing to see if this will fix the EZComments issue?
>  * When 1.2.3 goes into staging and/or production - would we really be
>  installing an old version, then upgrading to 1.2.3, following the
>  steps above? Or would it be advisable to install 1.2.3 from scratch?
>  If so, would we want to just install 1.2.3 from scratch in a new
>  instance on pt6,  so that we can have a documented, repeatable
>  process? 

For the future, I would really like to start some continuous integration
process for packaging - this was maintainers can simply review the created
packages and push them rather than have to spend time doing everything
manually.

Regards,

Drak

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 12:42:34AM -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
>  2010/6/7 Drak <drak(a)zikula.org&gt;:
>  > Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments.  We released a new
>  > version of EZComments 2.0.0.  Can you notify the maintainer please?  It
>  > would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or,
>  > possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with out
>  > CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/).  All we need to do is add an XML build
>  > file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it can
>  > be all sorted out automatically.
>  
>  For reference, the EZComments ticket in fedora:
>  https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2207
>  
>  Getting us to EZComments 2.0 appears to be the following process
>  (please excuse my non-coder descriptions, folks, and I may be wrong
>  about some / all of this):
>  * Upgrade to another version of php (I'm not clear on all the details
>  here, but I'm pretty sure this is on the list.) 
Nope, we don't need to do this after all, per Drak's earlier comments
on the list.  This was a mistake on the Zikula website.

>  * Upgrade to zikula 1.2.3 
Yes, via the new RPM that David Nalley has prepared.

There are some additional fixes that RPM needs, that Stephen Smoogen
discovered and was discussing with him.  I'm not sure those fixes are
in the 1.2.3 RPM that's currently available, but they can be added
later without affecting us greatly.

>  * Upgrade / add in EZComments 2.0 module (this may be part of zikula
>  1.2.3, I don't know, and can't tell offhand) 
It's not.  The RPM is a separate RPM, maintained by Mel Chua
apparently:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/zikula-module-EZComments

Mel Chua was the only person who has access to do that packaging.
I've just added myself to the list to get these changes moving, since
I assume that she didn't mean to silo that work.

There are a few modules that are part of Zikula itself, and the rest
are separate packages:

[pfrields@publictest6 ~]$ rpm -qa zikula-module\*
zikula-module-crpTag-0.1.3-3.el5
zikula-module-scribite-3.2-3.el5
zikula-module-fedora-fasauth-0.3-1.el5
zikula-module-News-2.4.1-3.el5
zikula-module-pagemaster-0.3.1-3.fc11
zikula-module-EZComments-0.1.61-1.el5.fedora.infra  <-- *we'll upgrade this
zikula-module-MultiHook-5.0-4.el5
zikula-module-filterutil-0-0.3.20090915svn15.el5
zikula-module-advanced_polls-1.5.1-1.el5

If you substitue those package names with the link I provided above,
you should be able to find out if we have any similar "SPoF"
situations with any of these modules.

>  * Patch back any changes made over the weekend WRT AuthFAS stuff,
>  etc. 
Since the AuthFAS module is provided in a separate RPM, it won't be
affected by the upgrade.

>  * Copy over our existing settings 
No need, the Zikula DB already contains all the settings and should
upgrade cleanly.

>  * Hope we don't have anything customized that is tied to
> existing
>  version of zikula - if we do, then deal with that as well. 
We can check using 'rpm -V zikula'.  I found that other than our
/etc/zikula/config.php file (expected differences), there's a change
that's been made directly on /usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php.

I want to remind our Zikula friends that making these changes directly
on the system is *discouraged* since we use packaged software from
EPEL to deploy Zikula.  This may be a patch that was tested and simply
not removed.  If that kind of change is not documented, however, it
raises the risk of regressions when we upgrade.

Drak, can you check that this change is included in Zikula 1.2.3?

======================= ** diff follows ** ===========================
--- /tmp/zikula/usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php 2010-02-28
04:44:59.000000000 +0000
+++ /usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php    2010-04-19
03:35:46.000000000 +0000
@@ -277,8 +277,8 @@
     function searchOverrides($domain, $path)
     {
         $lang = ZLanguage::transformFS($this->languageCode);
-        $prefix = $_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] . pnGetBaseURI();
-        $override =
"$prefix/config/locale/$lang/LC_MESSAGES/$domain.mo";
+        $prefix = realpath(realpath(dirname(__FILE__))
. DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR . '..');
+$override = "$prefix/config/locale/$lang/LC_MESSAGES/$domain.mo";
         return (is_readable($override) ? "$prefix/config/locale" :
	 "$prefix/$path");
     }
======================================================================

>  * Test, test, test functionality.
>  
>  I'm guessing that that process would take at least a week - probably
>  more, particularly given that a number of us are going to be at an
>  event this Wednesday - Sunday/Monday. Tuesday is our 6/15 deadline for
>  having a functional version of Fedora Insight up and running.
>  (Incidentally - I may be entirely overestimating the time for
>  upgrading.  I don't know if it's possible to throw together something
>  in the next day or two so that we can test this functionality in 1.2.3
>  w/EZComments 2.0 on a publictest machine.) 
We should be able to get this going today.

>  I didn't see any ticket related to this phenomenon in the list of
> all
>  tickets, open and closed, for EZComments.  I can file a ticket -
>  albeit against EZComments 1.6.1. I'm wondering, however, if this is
>  something that works properly in EZComments 2.0 - either "just works,"
>  or was a bug that was never documented and is fixed, etc.  I've asked
>  in the forums for some help / confirmation / verification that this
>  isn't user error -
>  http://community.zikula.org/module-Forum-viewtopic-topic-57991.htm -
>  if it's not user error, I'll file something.
>  
>  Not to jump the gun on any feedback I might get there - but I expect
>  we're going to wind up in one of four situations:
>  
>  1: Someone gloriously tells Robyn that this is an easy configuration tweak.
>  2: We get confirmation that an upgrade will solve our problems; we
>  upgrade over the next week, problem is fixed.
>  3: We upgrade over the next week and find out that this is still an
>  issue.  We'll need to file a ticket against EZComments 2.0, and wait
>  for a fix.
>  4: We get confirmation that an upgrade will not solve our problems,
>  and we need a fix.  We'll then have to decide if / how long we want to
>  wait, or if we want to modify our moderation requirements.
>  
>  I would like to avoid Situation #3 altogether.  I'm not a fan of
>  asking people to commit time, in an emergency fashion during a
>  terribly busy week, to a solution that may not solve anything at all.
>  IMO, we need to get answers that put us in Situations 1 or 2 (or even
>  4) by, I'd say, Wednesday (Paul, are we moving the FI meeting to back
>  one day to Wednesday, as some of us are out Thursday?). If we do not
>  have answers, I suggest we make some decisions on Wednesday. 
I'll send that email today.  I think we should meet on Wednesday since
as Robyn notes some of us (herself, me) will be out or traveling on
Thursday to Southeast LinuxFest.

>  Decision options include:
>  * How long will upgrade realistically take - including testing, etc.?
>  (This is more of a need an answer than decision, but..)
>  * Assess whether we want to rethink moderation - we could temporarily
>  not have moderation, and use spam filters, etc.  Or, moderate
>  -everything-.  If we're willing to make accommodations here, we could
>  upgrade and then hope it works, if not, plan M (modify moderation).
>  Basically - is this a blocker? 
We can always leave comments off for now.  I don't consider this a
blocker.

>  * Moving out deadline to accompany possibility that we will need a
>  fix, that upgrades will not be smooth, and give the lot of us on
>  travel a few days of breathing room. 
We have the same problem the week after this deadline -- several of us
are going to be gone for the Red Hat Summit in Boston.  We set up a
milestone so that we could accurately judge how much effort our team
was able to devote to Insight.  If we don't make this simple
milestone, I think we should use that information to inform our next
move.

>  * Put FI on hold and go back to the drawing board. 
We need to realize that some of the things we're dealing with right
now -- maintaining the platform and modules, testing functionality --
are going to be the same needs regardless of our choice of platform.

>  In the meantime, I will be keeping my fingers crossed that this is a
>  configuration error or something that can be confirmed as working in
>  EZComments 2.0. :D  I'd also add that some experienced eyeballs
>  looking at the existing configuration settings would be welcomed, to
>  make sure I'm not insane (this has been known to happen... pretty much
>  daily....) 
It doesn't seem to be a config error, there have been substantial code
changes upstream that we need to package and test.  I'll put some more
time into this today.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com

[Drak]

On 8 June 2010 18:25, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  We can check using 'rpm -V zikula'.  I found that other than
> our
>  /etc/zikula/config.php file (expected differences), there's a change
>  that's been made directly on /usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php.
>
>  I want to remind our Zikula friends that making these changes directly
>  on the system is *discouraged* since we use packaged software from
>  EPEL to deploy Zikula.  This may be a patch that was tested and simply
>  not removed.  If that kind of change is not documented, however, it
>  raises the risk of regressions when we upgrade.
>  
Yes, this change is in 1.2.3.  I worked on the bug you were experiencing
(symbolic links to zikula install meant ZLanguage was unable to locate the
locale files).  This was fix upstream and patched into your local install.
 We release Zikula 1.2.3 around 5-6 weeks ago with this change.

We need to realize that some of the things we're dealing with right
>  now -- maintaining the platform and modules, testing functionality
> --
>  are going to be the same needs regardless of our choice of platform. 

I'd also like to point out that for reasons I am not quite sure of, FI has
taken months and months when it should have taken just a few days - people
regularly deploy vastly complex Zikula sites in a matter of days.  Future
upgrades will be quite painless I can assure you, but I would really like to
do assist in the packaging process.  I think it would be far better (broken
record again), if we put all the RPM building on our CI server, then a large
portion of the packaging work would be done.  All that would remain is
testing and tweaking.  Since tweaks would be made to the build XML it means
future packaging would be even more painless.

Regards,

Drak

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 07:02:56PM +0545, Drak wrote:
>     On 8 June 2010 18:25, Paul W. Frields
> <[1]stickster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>       We can check using 'rpm -V zikula'.  I found that other than our
>       /etc/zikula/config.php file (expected differences), there's a change
>       that's been made directly on /usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php.
>  
>       I want to remind our Zikula friends that making these changes directly
>       on the system is *discouraged* since we use packaged software from
>       EPEL to deploy Zikula.  This may be a patch that was tested and simply
>       not removed.  If that kind of change is not documented, however, it
>       raises the risk of regressions when we upgrade.
>  
>     Yes, this change is in 1.2.3.  I worked on the bug you were experiencing
>     (symbolic links to zikula install meant ZLanguage was unable to locate the
>     locale files).  This was fix upstream and patched into your local install.
>      We release Zikula 1.2.3 around 5-6 weeks ago with this change. 
Excellent.  So we don't need to record this patch and can move on.
Zikula 1.2.3 packages were sent to the testing repository for EL-5, so
I'll grab one and install it to pt6 later today, along with fixing the
EZComments package.

>       We need to realize that some of the things we're dealing
> with right
>       now -- maintaining the platform and modules, testing functionality --
>       are going to be the same needs regardless of our choice of platform.
>  
>     I'd also like to point out that for reasons I am not quite sure of, FI has
>     taken months and months when it should have taken just a few days - people
>     regularly deploy vastly complex Zikula sites in a matter of days. 
Partly this is because many of the people who were working on this
project in the Fedora side are not experienced CMS administrators, nor
PHP developers.  And our requirements to have our customizations and
changes be reproducible through packaging (RPM) and systems management
(puppet) requires an additional set of skills as well.  Add to that
the fact that almost all the people working on the project are
volunteers (and the remaining ones, like myself, are short on
available time) and you have a recipe for a long process! :-)

>     Future upgrades will be quite painless I can assure you, but I
>     would really like to do assist in the packaging process.  I think
>     it would be far better (broken record again), if we put all the
>     RPM building on our CI server, then a large portion of the
>     packaging work would be done.  All that would remain is testing
>     and tweaking.  Since tweaks would be made to the build XML it
>     means future packaging would be even more painless.  Regards,  
>     Drak   
This is a good idea.  We would want to think about how to have that
build process properly complement the requirements of our
Infrastructure team for providing short-term package upgrades in their
special "infrastructure" yum repository, and the requirements that
David Nalley and other zikula RPM maintainers have for keeping things
synchronized in Fedora's overall repositories.  It should be pretty
easy for us to import a specfile and tarball from Zikula and submit
official builds through koji + bodhi.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com