On 6 June 2013 18:33, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:54 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 6 June 2013 04:15, Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 5 June 2013 17:43, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >>>> On 5 June 2013 16:48, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >>>>>> On 5 June 2013 11:05, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann < > > > >>> orwittm...@googlemail.com > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Hi, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> sorry for top-posting, but I think it makes sense to clean up > > some > > > >>>>> things. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Some facts and my opinions: > > > >>>>>>> (1) > > > >>>>>>> Fact: In communication with infra, infra had proposed > > > >>>>>>> https://updates.openoffice.**org/ < > > https://updates.openoffice.org/ > > > >>> > > > >>> ( > > > >>>>>>> https://ooo-updates.**openoffice.org/< > > > >>>>> https://ooo-updates.openoffice.org/>as the backup) as the URL > for > > > the > > > >>>>> resources accessed by the update > > > >>>>>>> functionality by AOO 4.0 and later. Nobody objects. > > > >>>>>>> My opinion: I think we should go for it. > > > >>>>>> +1, I will check dns, add whats missing, and when the cert > arrives > > > >>> update > > > >>>>>> erebus-ssl (the https: proxy) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> (2) > > > >>>>>>> Fact: In communication with infra, infra had proposed > > > >>>>>>> ^/openoffice/updates-site/**trunk as the SVN location for the > > > >>> resources > > > >>>>>>> needed for the update functionality by AOO 4.0 and later. > > > >>>>>>> My opinion: I believe it would be good to have the update > > resources > > > >>>>>>> separated from the website resources. It would mean to move > > > >>>>>>> > > ^/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/**content/projects/aoo40/check.**Update > > > >>> to > > > >>>>>>> ^/openoffice/updates-site/**trunk/aoo40/check.Update > > > >>>>>> +1 No problem, I can create the path in svn and add an alias > > (link) > > > >> in > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>> httpd server. Btw this is easy to change later, it is a simple > one > > > >>> line, > > > >>>>> in > > > >>>>>> the configuration. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> (3) > > > >>>>>>> My understanding: I think infra had in mind to "map" > > > >>>>>>> https://updates.openoffice.org (resp. https://ooo-updates.** > > > >>>>>>> openoffice.org/ <https://ooo-updates.openoffice.org/>) to > > > >>>>>>> ^/openoffice/updates-site/**trunk > > > >>>>>>> Please correct me, if my understanding is not correct. > > > >>>>>> it was correct, but changed to (2) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> (4) > > > >>>>>>> Fact: The update resources for AOO 3.4.1, AOO 3.4, OOo 3.3, OOo > > > >> 3.2.1 > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>>> OOo 3.2 will remain at their current SVN location and will be > > > >>> accessed > > > >>>>> by > > > >>>>>>> the current UpdateURLs. > > > >>>>>>> My opinion: Thus, I believe there will be no change to the SVN > > > >>>>> locations, > > > >>>>>>> to the URLs and to the "URL mapping/forwarding" (sorry, I do > not > > > >> know > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>> correct term here) for the update resources used by already > > > >> released > > > >>>>>>> versions. > > > >>>>>> mapping is the correct term. There will be no changes apart from > > (1) > > > >>> and > > > >>>>>> (2) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> My proposal: > > > >>>>>>> I propose to follow infra's proposal mentioned above in (1) and > > > >> (2). > > > >>>>>> I have added it to infra tasks. We are currently waiting for the > > > >> cert > > > >>> to > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>>> sent, then the first step will be to get https: working for wiki > > and > > > >>>>>> forums, second step is updates.o.o > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Best regards, Oliver. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> thx for a very clear mail, if nobody objects within the next 72 > > > >>> hours, > > > >>>>> it > > > >>>>>> will be implemented as you propose. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> An extra step will be needed. Presumably we want the Apache CMS > > > >>>>> enabled so it publishes files from the SVN dir to the website > dir. > > > >>>>> This doesn't happen automatically. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> that is not only an extra step, that can turn out to be a bigger > > > >>> challenge. > > > >>>> Having CMS enabled > > > >>>> is a very valid request, but then please choose a location inside > > the > > > >>>> web-site where CMS is already enabled. > > > >>> > > > >>> We already have two separate CMS publish targets from our SVN: > /site > > > >>> (openoffice.apache.org) and /ooo-site (www.openoffice.org). > Having > > a > > > >>> third one should not be a problem. I'd like to avoid the > complexity > > > >>> that would occur if we had the same SVN dir connected to two > > different > > > >>> CMS targets. > > > >> > > > >> of course it can be done its software, its just more work and more > > admin > > > >> afterward. > > > >> > > > >> You would not have one svn dir connected to two different cms > targets > > if > > > >> target dir is inside www.openoffice.org (which is what I > suggested). > > > >> > > > >> updates.openoffice.org is logically just a pointer, and would > > normally > > > >> point inside the www domain (that is the simple solution), but can > > point > > > >> outside the www domain (which requires changes to httpd.conf, and an > > > extra > > > >> cms setup). > > > > > > > > from Oliver's commmunication [1], it seems that > > updates.openoffice.orghas > > > > been suggested to be *outside* the current web site domain, and > > followed > > > by > > > > his comments -- > > > > > > > > "My opinion: I believe it would be good to have the update resources > > > > separated from the website resources. It would mean to move > > > > ^/openoffice/ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/aoo40/check.Update to > > > > ^/openoffice/updates-site/trunk/aoo40/check.Update" > > > > > > > > I feel we should NOT point the new update to any area within the > > existing > > > > www domain (we had some BIG problems initially trying to enable > updates > > > > through the web server), so a new CMS would be needed. Hopefully, > this > > is > > > > not a horrendous task. > > > > > > Infra will likely svnpubsub the new part of svn that has the update > logic > > > as bare files. Projects are not required to use CMS, but are required > to > > > use svnpubsub, > > > > > correct, that was (and is) the plan. > > > > > > > > I see no reason this needs to be pushed through CMS. None, it's too > much > > > extra work. > > > > > +1 > > > > I will get the things done (following oliver's proposal) during the > > weekend, so we only need to add the cert when it arrives. > > > > rgds > > jan I. > > > > great on all counts...and I see the new area has been established! >
It seems I was too fast (or more correctly too slow), at least the agrement disapeared, and I have been asked to file a jira, for this part of the https upgrade, and specifically not for the cert part (which is the overall task, covering both this and other issues). if we do it now with http, I can foresee the same thing happening with the https transfer, so I will highly recommend (as discussed earlier) that we forget updates for 4.0 and do it for 4.1 when the cert is installed. Of course if the community, want me to file a jira, and try to get it done for 4.0, I will do it. The cert is delayed, because of no response from the sponsor. There is at the moment a request to buy it instead. There are no jira detailing this issue, just some irc communication. rgds jan I. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Oliver and Jan. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> rgds > > > >> jan I. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> -Rob > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> rgds > > > >>>> jan i. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> -Rob > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> rgds > > > >>>>>> jan I. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On 05.06.2013 00:22, janI wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On 5 June 2013 00:05, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:59 PM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 4 June 2013 22:36, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2013 Rob Weir wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think the concern is this: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) We want SSL for 4.0.http://update.openoffice.****org< > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://update.openoffice.org> is not HTTPS. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) The URL https://ooo-site.openoffice.****apache.org< > > > >>>>> http://apache.org> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> < > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://ooo-site.openoffice.**apache.org< > > > >>>>> https://ooo-site.openoffice.apache.org>> > > > >>>>>>>>> supports SSL, but is > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> not considered "long term stable". The URL is an artifact > of > > > >> the > > > >>> CMS > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3) We're looking for a stable URL. One could be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://updates.openoffice.org****, but that requires an > > SSL > > > >>> cert > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *.openoffice.org. But will that be supported in time for > > the > > > >>> AOO > > > >>>>> 4.0 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Backup plan is updates.openoffice.apache.org, which > > could > > > >> be > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> supported via SSL today, using the *.apache.org cert. If > > we > > > >> do > > > >>>>> that > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> we'd want to map that to its own CMS dir in SVN. so it can > > be > > > >>>>> updated > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and published via the CMS. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> This is mostly correct, except the fact (in #2 and #4) that > > the > > > >>>>> current > > > >>>>>>>>>>> certificates only support x.apache.org and not > > x.y.apache.org: > > > >>> so > > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://ooo-site.apache.org is what is in the sources > right > > > >> now > > > >>>>> (well, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the last time I checked) and https://openoffice-updates. > > **a** > > > >>>>> pache.org<http://apache.org> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> < > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://openoffice-updates.**apache.org< > > > >>>>> https://openoffice-updates.apache.org>>(or > > > >>>>>>>>> something like that) should be > > > >>>>>>>>> used for the backup plan in #4. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I am confused, it seem we nearly all agree on > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://updates.openoffice.**orgbut < > > > >>>>> https://updates.openoffice.orgbut>not on the directory. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The order for the cert is being processed, when the cert > > arrives > > > >>> it > > > >>>>>>>>>> needs > > > >>>>>>>>>> to be implemented on erebus-sll (our https: proxy), and we > > > >> (infra) > > > >>>>> need > > > >>>>>>>>> to > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> do some updates on the aoo servers. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> In order to do this work, I need: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 1) which url (e.g. https://updates.openoffice.org**) > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2) should relate to which directory in svn. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> The last mails contains different proposal ranging from dont > > do > > > >> it > > > >>>>> for > > > >>>>>>>>> 4.0 > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> to different dirs, that is something I cannot implement. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> We can also decide to forget it for https:updates.*, but I > > need > > > >> a > > > >>>>> single > > > >>>>>>>>>> decision to be able to implement it. > > > >>>>>>>>> Is the cert already here? Or do we have a few weeks to > decide? > > > >>> I'd > > > >>>>>>>>> say, don't let this decision get in the way of deploying the > > cert > > > >>> and > > > >>>>>>>>> enabling it for the website, wikis, forums, etc. The update > > > >> site > > > >>>>>>>>> doesn't need to be enabled until shortly before AOO 4.0 is > > > >>> released. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> We have been promised a free cert, I just checked it is not > yet > > > >> in > > > >>>>> our > > > >>>>>>>> hands. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Wiki and other services with login, will be changed to https: > to > > > >>>>> adhere to > > > >>>>>>>> asf/infra policy. > > > >>>>>>>> This will be done on infra initative, and the actual setup > will > > be > > > >>> like > > > >>>>>>>> other servers in asf. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> update.o.o can come later, but it will definitively save work > if > > > >> we > > > >>> do > > > >>>>> it > > > >>>>>>>> as one task. Of course if > > > >>>>>>>> the decision is to postpone after 4.0, it will be 2 tasks. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> And depending on when the cert arrives, we might not use it > at > > > >> all > > > >>> for > > > >>>>>>>>> 4.0 updates. If it comes too late we'll just use an > > apache.org > > > >>>>>>>>> address. So we're really waiting for Infra on this, not the > > > >> other > > > >>>>>>>>> way around. We need an estimate for when the cert will be > > > >>> purchased > > > >>>>>>>>> so we can decide whether or not it will be used for 4.0 > > updates. > > > >>>>>>>> As I understand it from the code, the end-user never sees this > > > >> url, > > > >>> so > > > >>>>> why > > > >>>>>>>> not stick with apache.org ? > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> rgds > > > >>>>>>>> jan I. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> -Rob > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> rgds > > > >>>>>>>>>> jan I. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Andrea. > > > >> ------------------------------****----------------------------** > > > >>>>>>>>> --**--------- > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**a** > > > >> pache.org > > > >>> < > > > >>>>> http://apache.org> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> < > > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org< > > > >>>>> dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > >>>>>>>>> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------** > > > >>>>>>>>> --------- > > > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.** > > apache.org< > > > >>>>> dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > > > >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > >>> > > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.** > apache.org< > > > >>>>> dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > >>> > > > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > MzK > > > > > > > > "You can't believe one thing and do another. > > > > What you believe and what you do are the same thing." > > > > -- Leonard Peltier > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "You can't believe one thing and do another. > What you believe and what you do are the same thing." > -- Leonard Peltier >
