Also an FYI for the Documentation people:
We do have the 2.1 release candidate available for testing and exploring. It is listed on the demo servers page . It is on Release Candidate 1 at the moment; the RC2 server is not happy with Postgres 9.0 and I'm at a conference so I haven't had a chance to get it running yet. Brian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lori Bowen Ayre" <[email protected]> To: "Documentation discussion for Evergreen software" <[email protected]> Cc: "Brian Feifarek" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2011 8:42:11 AM Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] Test server for 2.1 (was: DIG Meeting Follow-up) Hi Robert and Dan and DIG, Just a point of clarification: we are happy to provide a free test server for the community and I know that Brian has had people use the test server he's set up. Usually, people use it for awhile, break it, use it a bit more, and then move on to another phase of their process. So, our experience is that there is a need for an easy to jump into demo server so we will maintain that. Also, there will be no charge for that (certainly as long as we are functioning on IMLS grant funds - after that I'll have to check my own Galecia accounts!) There is also a need for a test server separate from that demo server which tends to get screwy after so many people get on it. I know Brian had been in touch with Ben Webb so maybe it is time for them to reconvene. We had some data in the demo system but as I recall it wasn't the most useful data (all e-content at one point). At any rate, my point is, we are happy to set up a designated test server separate from the demo server(s) that people use so that DIG and anyone else who is testing new releases as a place to do their work. And finally, as to the other demo servers (fee-based), my concept there is to offer that as a service for people who need easy access to their own instance of Evergreen, want their own data loaded, may need it reset and/or reloaded over the course of their testing, and require some assistance to any number of things along the way. I'm not sure what to expect in terms of Brian's time commitment for such a service but I suspect it could easily be 3-4 hours of support per month per "client" since the people choosing this route are doing so because they aren't ready/able to set up their own server. I'll move that discussion over to the General List since it is a separate issue from the "test" and "community demo" servers, both of which we are happy to provide gratis. Let us (Brian and me) know how we can move the test server idea forward. We can wait for the community meeting but I'm not sure that's necessary. Lori =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant / The Galecia Group Oversight Board & Communications Committee / Evergreen (707) 763-6869 // [email protected] Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering, workflow optimization, and materials handling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 5:51 AM, Soulliere, Robert < [email protected] > wrote: Hi Dan, You summarized the intended purpose quite well. The main idea is to have a test server of the upcoming release so documentation authors could begin testing new features in practice before the official release of the version, thus reducing the time gap between release of the code and release of the official documentation. Hopefully, at some point we can release a good portion of the documentation at the same time as the code. The parts of the documentation to most benefit from this test server would be some of the staff client tasks and especially in regards to new features and work flows around those features. That being said, I guess the question should be brought up about whether this test server is a need in reality or only theory. In other words, if their is a test server for upcoming releases, will folks actually use it. Many of us have our own test environments and can set up test servers with future releases, but the hope was that this gives a greater number of folks access to a test environment for the future releases to help improve the documentation and get new documentation more quickly to the community. We might have a way to gauge usage of a community Evergreen test server since Brian Feifarek generously to set up a test server for 2.0 months ago. It is publicized ion the DIG page (and other places): http://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=evergreen-docs:dig and it has been brought up at a past DIG and community meetings in the past. This was set up at the release candidate stage of 2.0 development. I wonder if we could get some statistics on usage or traffic for this server since it has been running for quite a while? Those number might give us an idea about whether this is a need at all at this time. Perhaps people could chime in as well to indicate if such a test server is useful or not -- we could extend that question to the general lists? Silence could tell us a lot. I don't think a route involving financial costs would be possible since DIG does not have a budget. Of course, a free server would be "free" as in kittens and not "free" as in beer since there are resource and time costs associated with a documentation test server which is why we need to verify if it is truly a need. In short, would demand justify the costs? Thanks, Robert Robert Soulliere, BA (Hons), MLIS Systems Librarian Mohawk College Library [email protected] Telephone: 905 575 1212 x3936 Fax: 905 575 2011 ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [ [email protected] ] On Behalf Of Dan Scott [ [email protected] ] Sent: September 2, 2011 12:55 AM To: Documentation discussion for Evergreen software Subject: [OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] Test server for 2.1 (was: DIG Meeting Follow-up) On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Lori Bowen Ayre wrote: > HI All, > > Regarding a test server. We've been trying to provide a test server > environment with Brian's efforts. Currently, I guess it is really more of a > demo server but without too much effort, we could probably set up 2.1 > instances for libraries to use for their own testing. Brian has the servers > on the Amazon cloud so we could build VM instances there. > > We'd probably have to charge a fee to set up a dedicated image of 2.1 that a > library could use for a period of time. Brian could be available to reset > it if someone wanted to start all over as part of their testing and he could > provide some limited tech support. But the concept would be, your library > could have access to their own system so you could load data and test > settings without having to worry that another person would come in and undo > everything you set up. > > Is this of interest? And if so, how do you see DIG being involved? And > also, what could libraries pay (e.g. per month) for having us set this up > and maintain it for them....$500/month? A VPS at Linode and many other sites with 1.5 GB of RAM - enough to load a reasonable amount of data on for testing purposes - is about $60 / month. Before we even go that route, though, community members have been pretty generous in the past about making VMs available for various purposes (PINES with the Web server and various other machines, Mohawk with the doc server, Equinox with the testing and git servers, etc). Maybe step one would be to ask the broader community who (if anyone) would be willing to make a 2.1 server available. I believe the purpose of the system would be to test and document procedures to ensure that the documentation is sound - is that what you had in mind, Robert and Yamil? It sounds like what Lori has in mind would be something set up & reserved for specific libraries, which is a bit of a different beast. Ben Webb, as part of his Google Summer of Code project, had made significant progress on automating Evergreen installs. So we'd be looking at getting a 2.1 server set up, and running a single command to reload a clean set of data whenever needed (this, too, could be automated). It would be awesome to have a consistent set of data to support documented task flows so we could ensure that the outcomes are what we expect, but baby steps... Aside: this would be a good topic for our next community meeting, which we should probably try and schedule... _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy the original message. _______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
_______________________________________________ OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list [email protected] http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
