TG2 and RHEL-6

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 02:13:22PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> 
> > So one of the things moving from EPEL to RHEL in EL-6 is the TurboGears 2
> > stack.  We recently had TG-2.1 pushed into EPEL-5 testing.  this is newer than
> > what is in EL-6.  TG-2.1 broke  a couple of things in Moksha(community)
> > because its using internal api's that changed, the public api is stable.  but
> > it brings up the maintenance burden for when we start migrating to EL-6 on app
> > servers. Moksha would ethier need to work with 2.0 and 2.1?  not sure if its
> > doable.  or the version for EL-6 will need to use the old api.  or something
> > else ive not mentioned/thought of.
> >
> 
> FWIW, when I tested 2.1 with virt_web (it was written against 2.0) so I
> suspect the changes are small.
> 
> >
> > another option is replace the TG stack.  which then means for the life of us
> > using EL-6 we will need to maintain the TG stack in the infra repo and any
> > packages we use on top of it.  it also means we cant put TG apps into EPEL-6
> > since they wont work.
> >
> > alternatively we could use some fedora app servers where we can put everything
> > into fedora. maintain an updated stack in fedora,  but have the additional
> > cost of greater maintenance needed for the fedora based servers.
> >
> > I don't have the answer but we need to start the discussion now so that we
> > have a plan and dont get blindsided by this.
> >
> 
> Also right now we only have one tg2 app/stack deployed in community.  It
> exists fine with the 1.x tree.  Luke's already got a working moksha with
> 2.1 so I think keeping our apps in line will be pretty easy, the bigger
> question is what will ship with RHEL.  if they do ship 2.0, will EPEL
> allow a 2.1 fork or will we have to run our own?  Will it not matter?  I
> think I have more questions then answers on that but yeah thanks for
> getting the conversation started.
> 
Just judging by the way the infrastructure repo has grown over the course of
RHEL5, I think that it's inevitable that we eventually roll our own version
of tings that we are developing against.  However, for the sake of reducing
the maintainance burden we carry, I think it would be great if we could
defer this for as long as possible.

In TG2 vs TG2.1's case, most of the improvements seem to be speed.  If we
aren't having problems keeping up with the number of requests, perhaps we
want to wait to switch to TG-2.1 on the app servers.  Luke, does that sound
right for now?

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20100609/692637d3/attachment.bin