Hi Daniel,
Like all offers to help, this is really awesome and very much
appreciated. I realise that we do have to capture all this enthusiasm
while it lasts so sorry this is still being a bit of a long process.
I'll try to ensure that we get you and others who are interested the
ability to edit the wiki and raise tickets as quickly as possible.
Any expertise you have with LDAP may become useful at some point
although I think we are unlikely to be bringing that up too early. We'll
need to discuss with INFRA whether that is something that can be done.
As I mentioned before, it would be nice if we didn't have to worry about
us introducing spam users!
>From the point of view of a longer future, with a move to Django we may
gain the ability to make use of auth middleware for ldap. This will need
a bit of investigation to check alternatives. We will not be wanting to
implement something like this for ourselves!
At the moment I am sure there will be plenty of areas to look at getting
involved with along with an overall discussion to influence.
Cheers,
Gary
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, at 10:17 AM, Daniel Brownridge wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> Just catching up with all the mails after a busy work period.
>
> I've never had any kind of account but would like one to be able to
> contribute.
>
> If there is some kind of list, sign me up please!
>
> Should note I also have some (very rusty) experience with LDAP so can
> help with that if necessary.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Daniel
>
> On 14/11/17 19:05, Gary wrote:
> > That is an interesting question.
> >
> > One thing we should really be considering is whether we can be using a
> > common set of users to the apache instance of jira through ldap or
> > however it works. It may introduce a small barrier to access to ask
> > people to register through jira but it might be nice to be able to avail
> > ourselves of responsibility of working out who the real users are.
> >
> > I expect we should be able to work with our own permissions against an
> > external ldap, for instance. I have not yet tried such a setup of
> > course. This may be something that is delayed for further down the line
> > if it would delay recovery too much. It may be that we can use multiple
> > sources for users too. Possibly worth checking.
> >
> > Anyway, the immediate need should be considered to be getting anyone who
> > needs access signed up so the questions around this need to be
> > considered by others here are:
> >
> > * would those who already have accounts mind if they needed to sign up
> > again?
> > * can we have access to register accounts opened for now or do we want
> > spam control in place from the start?
> > * would a longer term plan to have accounts 'shared' with another
> > apache issue tracker instance bother you?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gary
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, at 12:56 PM, John Chambers wrote:
> >> Thanks Gary. I will take a look at the backup you provided later today.
> >> Hopefully as you say it will make the restore process much easier.
> >>
> >> I think once I have the restore process to a copy of the latest
> >> Bloodhound
> >> release sorted, we can start a discussion with INFRA on the best way
> >> forward.
> >>
> >> One question I did have though is this. Should I be looking to restore
> >> the
> >> current user base?
> >>
> >> We may also need to discuss solving the issues of spam users and posts
> >> etc
> >> which caused some issues previously.
> >>
> >> Will keep you all updated with progress.
> >>
> >> Cheers.
> >>
> >> John.
> >>
> >> On 13 Nov 2017 11:21, "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi John,
> >>>
> >>> Just a quick note about the upgrade. I suspect that the backup you are
> >>> testing on has not got the proper environment. It seems a little
> >>> surprising that the attachments are in the wrong place for a 0.4
> >>> installation. I've found the backup that I made for the upgrade work and
> >>> passed it on to you. Assuming that is the right stuff, that might make
> >>> life easier!
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps we can look at puppet again shortly. It may be that the problems
> >>> that I had were smaller than they looked. I would expect it to be fine
> >>> to install without but have a commitment to get the setup properly
> >>> puppetised later. Though obviously that is something to clear with INFRA
> >>> again.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Gary
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2017, at 10:20 AM, John Chambers wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I just wanted to give a quick status update on my progress with getting
> >>>> the
> >>>> live issue tracker and wiki back online.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have managed to use the existing vagrant/salt files to provision a vm
> >>>> with the 0.4 version installed.
> >>>> I have also got a fix for the issue where apache was unable to serve
> >>>> bloodhound. I have managed to use the existing backup of the live site to
> >>>> restore the database.
> >>>> However because the live site wasn't a standard 0.4 installation, I think
> >>>> it was still using trac 0.13dev for some reason, I was unable to just
> >>>> restore the ticket attachments.
> >>>> So rather than waste time investigating this I just went through and
> >>>> reattached the files manually. So I now have a working version of the
> >>>> live
> >>>> site at version 0.4 with ticket attachments.
> >>>> What I don't have in my backup is the wiki attachments. So unless anyone
> >>>> else has a backup of them I would have to get INFRA to restart the old
> >>>> VM.
> >>>> I am reluctant to do this unless I really have to.
> >>>>
> >>>> What I have planned next are:
> >>>>
> >>>> - Create new backup from 0.4 using trac-admin hotcopy which will clean
> >>>> and restore the database.
> >>>> - Test that I can consistently rebuild with just vagrant/salt and
> >>>> backup
> >>>> file.
> >>>> - Build new 0.8 vm using vagrant/salt.
> >>>> - Restore from my 0.4 backup.
> >>>> - Upgrade if necessary.
> >>>> - Test everything is working.
> >>>> - Create new backup for version 0.8
> >>>> - Test that I can consistently rebuild this version with just
> >>>> vagrant/salt and backup file.
> >>>> - Commit my changes to the vagrant/salt files to trunk and publish my
> >>>> restore instructions here, also commit my live 0.8 backup file to the
> >>>> private svn repository.
> >>>>
> >>>> The next stage after that will be to work with INFRA to create puppet
> >>>> scripts to match the vagrant/salt ones we have to provision and setup the
> >>>> new live VM.
> >>>> Maybe this is work that others could look at whilst I complete the above.
> >>>> If someone wants to start this work let me know and I will commit my fix
> >>>> for the apache issue and changes to provision the live vm to trunk for
> >>>> you
> >>>> to make use of.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>>
> >>>> John.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7 November 2017 at 18:50, Dammina Sahabandu <[email protected]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1 for deploying 0.8 release which is the latest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:11 PM Gary <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, at 03:11 PM, Olemis Lang wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hello John
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11/6/17, John Chambers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Olemis,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The plan that has been discussed before was to migrate to an 0.8
> >>>>>> instance.
> >>>>>>>> So we can make use of full multi-product support. I still think
> >>> this
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> possible.
> >>>>>>>> Having multiple instances could cause some confusion in my
> >>> opinion
> >>>>> so I
> >>>>>>>> would look to avoid that if possible.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is a reason why b.a.o was not upgraded to 0.8 before . That's
> >>>>>>> why I suggested keeping both VMs during the time 0.8 evolves to
> >>> become
> >>>>>>> stable (which I think should be the next step, cmiiw). IMHO having
> >>> a
> >>>>>>> stable multi-product version should be a precondition to shut down
> >>> 0.4
> >>>>>>> instance and release a new version (be it 0.8.x , 0.9 or ...).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'll also plan for bringing back to life blood-hound.net
> >>> multi-product
> >>>>>>> instance. In the process I might get some inspiration to write a
> >>>>>>> Docker file . These days I only tend to deploy services in
> >>> containers.
> >>>>>>> Nonetheless , like I just said , looking forward I'd recommend
> >>> doing a
> >>>>>>> (major?) architectural upgrade in BH code base.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we can prove that the 0.8 will work well enough, let's just use
> >>> that.
> >>>>>> I don't think an intermediate situation where we are running two or
> >>> more
> >>>>>> is feasible. We should be using the latest version we can and
> >>> preferably
> >>>>>> the latest release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Gary
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Dammina Sahabandu
> >>>>> Associate Tech Lead, AdroitLogic
> >>>>> Committer, Apache Software Foundation
> >>>>> AMIE (SL)
> >>>>> Bsc Eng Hons (Moratuwa)
> >>>>> +94716422775
> >>>>>
>
