Fedora Insight testing

Drak drak at zikula.org
Tue Jun 8 08:01:12 UTC 2010


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 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/6/7 Drak <drak at zikula.org>:
> > 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 at gmail.com> 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 at lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > logistics mailing list
> > logistics at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
> >
> _______________________________________________
> logistics mailing list
> logistics at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/logistics/attachments/20100608/ac7578dc/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the logistics mailing list