On 18/06/14 04:07, Dan Callahan wrote: > 0. Are those the right goals? Am I unnecessarily conflating anything?
I really like #1 and #2. I'm not sure #3 is necessary since core devs / QA have historically tended to use AWS for testing > 1. What platforms should we support? As far as I know, in terms of raw numbers, the two most popular distros on the web are Debian and CentOS. So we should support Debian-based and RPM-based distros if we're going to go that route. > 2. Are there any configuration management systems that you've had a > particularly good or bad experience with? Any suggestions for what we > should use? If we're going with tarballs, we don't really need to worry about this. > 3. Would you, yourself, use the above system for local development or > testing? Why / why not?ions) No. "git clone" and "npm install" is all I've ever needed for development. > 4. How should we package and distribute the services? I don't think that binary packages are necessary to reach Goal #1. We should probably just go with source tarballs (including good setup instructions) and let distro packagers do their work [1]. Three reasons: 1. Maintaining packages is a lot of work 2. As a user, I avoid packages made by upstream developers because they're usually not up to the quality standards of distro packages (see reason #1). 3. Our users who want to self-host are quite motivated and don't need a one-click solution. So my recommendation would be tarball releases with: - version numbers (can be a date) - ChangeLog - INSTALL - README - gpg signature Francois [1] http://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/posts/getting-your-project-included-into-free/ _______________________________________________ Dev-fxacct mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxacct
