Requesting/managing upgrades to beaker.fedoraproject.org

[Tim Flink]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:05:48 +1000
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at redhat.com> wrote:

Apologies on the delayed response. I had been hoping to complete our
evaluation of beaker before responding here but since that process is
currently caught up in legal ... it might be a while.

> With Beaker 0.15.1 due out soon, we'd like to upgrade
> beaker.fedoraproject.org once the new version is available.
> 
> At the moment, Dan Callaghan and I are admins for the Beaker instance,
> while Raymond Mancy and Amit Saha are registered users of that
> instance. However, we aren't admins for the actual *servers*, which
> is what is needed in order to manage upgrades.
> 
> We're happy to help manage the Fedora Beaker instance (including
> upgrades), but when Tim last looked into that, it wasn't easy to give
> us access to just the Beaker server and lab controllers without
> giving us broader access to the rest of the Fedora infrastructure
> systems (which we *don't* really want).

The beaker server is currently grouped with the rest of the qa
infrastructure (autoqa and a couple of other things), so it's not really
everything but a bit more than just beaker.

> I figure the next step is to file a ticket at
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ but the question is
> which ticket to file:
> 
> 1. File a ticket now to get at least Dan and myself (and preferably
> Ray and Amit as well) sufficient access to handle Beaker upgrades for
> beaker.fedoraproject.org.
> 
> 2. Wait until 0.15.1 is available, and then file a ticket to get
> beaker.fedoraproject.org updated.

I'm fine with either direction for now. My hesitation on getting
started with 1) is that having a beaker installation is still an
evaluation for us. I have a hard time seeing things not working out but
I also don't pretend to be clarvoyant :)

If you guys are fine with putting work into something that will probably
change (see comment below about ansible), I can get the ball rolling to
separate the ACL for the beaker server and get you all the access you
need. Otherwise, I can just apply the updates myself. Let me know if
you all have a preference on which route to take right now.

> Regardless of which we do, we should probably create a page on the
> Fedora wiki and/or a doc in
> http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/infra/docs/ to explain the
> Fedora Beaker instance's existence and how it gets used, managed and
> upgraded.

Eventually, I want to ansible-ize the beaker server. I set it up as a
one-off but I dislike having production machines that can't be quickly
re-deployed. Not sure if you guys are interested in working on the
initial playbook, though. Either way, that doesn't have to happen right
now.

Thanks,

Tim

> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Nick.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/qa-devel/attachments/20131101/90d84307/attachment.sig>