Please note I'm not saying we shouldn't leverage a test box, we just have to be very wary on how it's used. I like the idea of obscuring real data.
On Nov 12, 2016 09:51, "sebb" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 November 2016 at 14:31, John D. Ament <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Then yes, we have a different POV of what the use of this is. > > > > I'd be concerned with end users leveraging a test system. > > The point is for us to be able to leverage the larger user base! > > > There's ways we > > can handle it though - maybe add very obvious environment badging and not > > using similar data sets. > > I already touched on that. > Replacing "Permalink" and using a URL that is obviously a test host. > > I think it is important that we can use the same data, otherwise it > reduces the usefulness. > > But we could rename the lists, e.g. change apache.org to > apache-test.invalid or some such. > > > > John > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 8:23 AM sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> This thread is about providing a shared public test installation that > >> can also be used by end-users. > >> > >> Discussion of local developer installations belongs in a separate thread > >> please. > >> > >> > >> On 12 November 2016 at 13:06, John D. Ament <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > I was able to get a ubuntu based VM working locally. The install > >> > instructions seem to work fine. > >> > > >> > The only thing I'm facing now is trying to get my local changes > syncing > >> > properly to the VM. > >> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 8:53 AM Ulises <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Would it be beneficial to have a virtualbox/docker thing for local > >> testing? > >> >> If so, I think I have an old Vagrantfile I could polish and > contribute. > >> >> > >> >> U > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 at 13:15 sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > On 11 November 2016 at 02:30, John D. Ament <[email protected] > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > +1 > >> >> > > > >> >> > > would you want some puppet config to be able to build the box > from? > >> >> and > >> >> > > would it be possible to grant the PPMC access to the box for > manual > >> >> > testing? > >> >> > > >> >> > That's what I am assuming/hoping. > >> >> > Otherwise it's going to be far less useful. > >> >> > > >> >> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:21 PM Gavin McDonald < > >> [email protected] > >> >> > > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > On 11 Nov. 2016, at 1:16 pm, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Would it be worth setting up a test installation, along with > some > >> >> test > >> >> > >> data? > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > This would allow testing of changes to the code by many more > >> people. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > And would allow people who have reported bugs to see if any > fixes > >> >> work > >> >> > >> for them. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > I think we should use only public data just in case (we could > >> >> simulate > >> >> > >> > some private mails). > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Since the Permalinks could not be guaranteed to work > long-term, I > >> >> > >> > think the button text should also be changed on the box. Maybe > >> the > >> >> > >> > list ids could be changed as well. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > Thoughts? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> I think its a good idea. Ask Infra for a test box where a > >> >> Nightly/Weekly > >> >> > >> wipe and build of trunk/master > >> >> > >> can be available with test data. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Gav… > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
