Objective is to make sure committers has access to CI. As far as that objective is met, it shouldn't matter whether the auth mechanism uses GitHub or Apache SSO.
If GitHub SSO is easier to implement, let's go ahead and do that unless someone in the list objects. On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:21 AM Chris Olivier <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 < > > > [email protected]> 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" < > > [email protected] > > > >: > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > [email protected]> 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" < > > > > > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > 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" < > > > [email protected] > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > [email protected]> 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" < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > Marco, > > > > > > > > > > > > Are all committers able to get login access to the Jenkins > Server? > > > If > > > > > not, > > > > > > why? > > > > > > > > > > > > -Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
