Sent from my LG phone

[email protected] wrote:

>Send OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list submissions to
>       [email protected]
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
>
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       [email protected]
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>       [email protected]
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1.  ***SPAM*** Re: Test server for 2.1 (was:        DIG     Meeting
>      Follow-up) ([email protected])
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
>From: [email protected]
>Subject: [OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] ***SPAM*** Re: Test server for 2.1
>       (was:   DIG     Meeting Follow-up)
>To: Documentation discussion for Evergreen software
>       <[email protected]>
>Message-ID:
>       <1887254794.840870.1314979120627.javamail.r...@md18.quartz.synacor.com>
>       
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>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 
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: 
><http://list.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-documentation/attachments/20110902/9226ff98/attachment-0001.htm>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation
>
>
>End of OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION Digest, Vol 41, Issue 4
>*****************************************************
_______________________________________________
OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation

Reply via email to