On 8-Jul-08, at 12:19 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 08/07/2008, at 1:47 AM, John Casey wrote:
Jason's referring to a ruby script I wrote to lookup the version
string for a particular staged project, for use in the stage:copy
mojo. This allows us to setup generic promotion scripts in a CI
environment like Hudson. I've committed this script to: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/sandbox/trunk/scripts
.
So basically it's a simple way to do http to http repository copies
instead of http to scp?
The rest of this release infrastructure has simply been
configuration of hudson and nexus - nexus, to provide a staging
ground for releases - to configure release jobs that deploy to this
staging location instead of the real release repository...just
generalizing on configuration that we all have in our personal
settings.xml files by now. Jason's credentials are used for SVN and
SSH where necessary, and I've created a new GPG key for use in this
CI system, then signed it with my own key. That key ID is: 84B54612.
Sorry, but I'm not at all comfortable with this.
Firstly, it rules out both of our current Hudson instances, since it
gives access to people outside the project to be able to read our
private release key. I'm not even sure about the wisdom of using a
shared key vs. an individual one and would want to ask someone with
more experience.
The driving idea is that you generate sub-keys so that if the primary
is compromised you don't have the revoke the primary key around the
world and breaking everything using the primary key, or breaking
everything where a sub-key was generated with the primary key. Fairly
standard stuff.
Secondly, it gives others access to Jason's account on
people.apache.org that are not Jason, as well as losing the
information of who deployed it.
Not in Hudson, the person who initiated a job can be tracked. It's not
in the UI but that's easy to capture.
There are other ways to handle the second part if we do have a
canonical release repository on a different machine to the present
one (namely, a user initiated pull from people which is easy enough).
As long as the movement is auditable and secure it doesn't much
matter. Let's say what we want first.
Maybe we could run whatever the final proposal is past the ASF
security and infrastructure teams?
I think the Contegix and Infra teams would have valuable input. It's
really more at the security level where they would play a part. But
the goal is full automation with a reliable tool like Hudson.
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
A language that doesn’t affect the way you think about programming is
not worth knowing.
-— Alan Perlis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
