Hosted plans

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 10:54 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Hosted01 has the following items on it: 
> 
> * apache/httpd
> 	gitweb
> 	other scm web
> 	trac
> 	mailman archive http access
> 	source downloads (tar.gz, etc)
> 	loggerhead
> 	reviewboard

I've been talking with Mike McGrath about ReviewBoard. I really want to
get ReviewBoard off of Hosted, as the performance is incredibly poor and
the FAS integration causes problems that I have not had a chance to
identify.

Furthermore, starting with ReviewBoard 1.5.6 (being released upstream
soon), I've submitted patches to make it possible to use ReviewBoard
against any FedoraHosted git repository remotely. The main reason that
ReviewBoard was located on FedoraHosted to begin with is because it
needed direct access to the git repositories. So I'd like to move
ReviewBoard to one of the app servers or into an OpenShift instance.

Of course, we still have issues regarding the FAS integration. For
reasons I've still not been able to nail down, it causes us to lose
access to the server. I was hoping to switch over to using OpenID with
the release of ReviewBoard 1.6, but unfortunately they've deferred that
feature until 1.7.

So I'm proposing the following options:

1) Move our existing ReviewBoard instance to one of the app servers.
This will significantly improve the performance and responsiveness, but
we'll still have no email notification support (due to as-yet-unknown
negative interaction with FAS integration)
2) Move ReviewBoard to an app server and drop integration with FAS and
allow standard enrollment for users, be they Fedora users or not. This
will solve the performance and email issues, but results in a server
running on Fedora systems that is not using Fedora accounts. Also I'm
not sure we can maintain the existing review histories for the few
projects currently using the system.
3) Turn ReviewBoard into a turnkey OpenShift virtual instance and allow
any Fedora Hosted project to spin one up. This instance would use
standard enrollment (rather than FAS integration, which is impossible
outside the Infra firewall). Each project could have its own complete
instance to maintain on its own. Upsides: less work for Fedora Admins,
support for email and better performance. Downsides: no
centrally-managed user accounts and projects need to do more of the
maintaining of the system themselves.

I'm all ears for a fourth (or fifth...) option.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20110808/8ef2142d/attachment-0001.bin