Fedora Insight testing
robyn.bergeron at gmail.com
Tue Jun 8 08:21:25 UTC 2010
2010/6/8 Drak <drak at zikula.org>:
> 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
> Hope this helps.
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
> 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:
>> 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
>> 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
>> > 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
> logistics mailing list
> logistics at lists.fedoraproject.org
More information about the logistics