I am fine without a vote unless a vote is required? Any objections, anyone? You're sort of adding functionality here, not changing or restricting... We can always change to Apache later.
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I'd be in favour of GitHub. Shall we open a vote or would you like me to > create a POC with GitHub first and afterwards we can check if that's > enough? > > -Marco > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Apparently Apache supports OATH, so I am open to either. > > Good idea for the docker thing. > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > GitHub SSO allows the neat feature that login and permission can be > > > selected depending on the access rights a user has to a project. > Somebody > > > with write access (committers) would be get different permissions than > > > somebody with only read access. > > > > > > We could check back with Apache for SSO, but this would involve Apache > > > infra. We could put it up to a vote whether to use GitHub or Apache > SSO. > > > > > > In order to reproduce a build failure we have been thinking about > > changing > > > the ci_build.sh in such a way that it can be run manually without > > Jenkins. > > > The setup I took over binds the Jenkins work directory into the docker > > > containers and uses a few hacks which are hard to reproduce locally. We > > > plan to reengineer this script to make it easier to run manually. > > > But making the AMI public is a good idea! We plan to make the whole > > > infrastructure code (based on Terraform) completely public - at the > > moment > > > it's in a private repository as it contains credentials, but they will > be > > > moved to KMS soon. It would definitely be a good approach to just > supply > > > the AMI so everybody could recreate the environment in their own > account. > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > Am 05.01.2018 7:51 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < > cjolivie...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > Well, login to the Jenkins server, I would imagine. > > > > > > github or Apache SSO (does Apache support OAUTH?) seems like a good > idea > > as > > > long as there's a way to not let everyone with a github account log in. > > > > > > Access to actual slave machines could be more restricted, I imagine. > > > > > > Eventually, a public current AMI for a build slave would be good in > order > > > to reproduce build or test problems that can't be reproduced locally. > > > > > > wdyt? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Would it be an acceptable solution if we add SSO or do you also want > > > access > > > > to the actual AWS account and all machines? > > > > > > > > Yes, the build jobs are automatically getting created for new > branches. > > > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > Am 05.01.2018 7:35 nachm. schrieb "Marco de Abreu" < > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com>: > > > > > > > > I totally agree, this is not the way it should work in an Apache > > Project. > > > > It's running on an isengard account, meaning it is only accessible > for > > > > Amazon employees. The problem is that a compromised account could > cause > > > > damage up to 170,000$ per day. There are alarms in place to notice > > those > > > > cases, but we still have to be very careful. These high limits have > > been > > > > chosen due to auto scaling being added within the next week's. > > > > > > > > I'd be happy to introduce a committer into the CI process and all the > > > > necessary steps as well as granting them permission. The only > > restriction > > > > being that it has to be and Amazon employee and access to console, > > master > > > > and slave only being possible from the Corp network. > > > > > > > > There is no open ticket. What would you like to request? > > > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 05.01.2018 7:22 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < > > cjolivie...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > > Like John and other mentors were saying, it's not proper for CI to > be a > > > > closed/inaccessible environment. Is it running on an Isengard > account > > or > > > > in PROD or CORP or just generic EC2? I think that we should remedy > > this. > > > > It's very strange that no committers have access at all. Is there a > > > ticket > > > > open to IPSEC? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Marco de Abreu < > > > > marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello Chris, > > > > > > > > > > At the moment this is not possible due Amazon AppSec (Application > > > > security) > > > > > restrictions which does not permit user data and credentials on > these > > > > > machines. > > > > > > > > > > I have been thinking about adding single sign on bound to GitHub, > but > > > we > > > > > would have to check back with AppSec. > > > > > > > > > > Is the reason for your request still the ability to start and stop > > > > running > > > > > builds? > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > > > Am 05.01.2018 7:11 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" < > > > cjolivie...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > Marco, > > > > > > > > > > Are all committers able to get login access to the Jenkins Server? > > If > > > > not, > > > > > why? > > > > > > > > > > -Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
