FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Infrastructure

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-08-2011, 05:01 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

I've re-downgraded TurboGears to 1.0.9 on the fas servers. Another
incompatibility was discovered i nthe TG-.1.1.x series. EPEL6 is going out
of beta soon so on Monday I'll need to decide whether to revert TG in EPEL6
to TG-1.0.x or work on fixing fas further.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 
Old 01-08-2011, 03:39 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:01 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I've re-downgraded TurboGears to 1.0.9 on the fas servers. Another
> incompatibility was discovered i nthe TG-.1.1.x series. EPEL6 is going out
> of beta soon so on Monday I'll need to decide whether to revert TG in EPEL6
> to TG-1.0.x or work on fixing fas further.
>

Toshio,
thank you for doing this - I'm sorry the update to TG on fas has been
such a pain.

-sv


_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 
Old 01-08-2011, 11:17 PM
Jonathan Steffan
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:01 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> EPEL6 is going out of beta soon so on Monday I'll need to decide
> whether to revert TG in EPEL6 to TG-1.0.x or work on fixing fas
> further.

Please don't restrict version upgrades in public repos because of FAS.
That is not fair to our downstream. Worse case we can maintain an
internal 1.0.x TG until we have all the bugs worked out for 1.1.x.

Thanks,

Jonathan

_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 
Old 01-08-2011, 11:52 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 17:17 -0700, Jonathan Steffan wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:01 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > EPEL6 is going out of beta soon so on Monday I'll need to decide
> > whether to revert TG in EPEL6 to TG-1.0.x or work on fixing fas
> > further.
>
> Please don't restrict version upgrades in public repos because of FAS.
> That is not fair to our downstream. Worse case we can maintain an
> internal 1.0.x TG until we have all the bugs worked out for 1.1.x.
>

It's not just about fas - the issue seems to be that the TG update is
NOT backward compatible which was the presumption on the pushed update
AIUI.

Toshio, do we have any other info about upgrade issues from other apps,
not just fas?


thx,
-sv


_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 
Old 01-09-2011, 12:50 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 07:52:13PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 17:17 -0700, Jonathan Steffan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:01 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > EPEL6 is going out of beta soon so on Monday I'll need to decide
> > > whether to revert TG in EPEL6 to TG-1.0.x or work on fixing fas
> > > further.
> >
> > Please don't restrict version upgrades in public repos because of FAS.
> > That is not fair to our downstream. Worse case we can maintain an
> > internal 1.0.x TG until we have all the bugs worked out for 1.1.x.
> >
>
> It's not just about fas - the issue seems to be that the TG update is
> NOT backward compatible which was the presumption on the pushed update
> AIUI.
>
Yep. Most people are moving onto TurboGears-2. So the only reason I want to
have TurboGear-1.x is for compat with apps not yet ported. Currently both
TG-1.0 and TG-1.1 are supported branches by upstream. Soon upstream is
going to release TG-1.5.x as well. TG-1.5.x is definitely not compatible
(it's built on top of cherrypy3 instead of cherrypy2) but upstream told me
(and in their release announcements, etc) that TG-1.1 was going to be
compatible with TG-1.0.x. Sadly, this isn't the case.

> Toshio, do we have any other info about upgrade issues from other apps,
> not just fas?
>
We've run pkgdb against TG-1.1.1 successfully but haven't done exhaustive
testing. We've also run bodhi against it and tried it's unittests. It
failed some of them but those were all traced to incompatibilities in
TG-1.1's testing framework rather than incompatibilities in the framework
itself.

So, I'm divided. I wanted to get TG-1.1.x into EPEL6 since upstream TG will
eventually get tired of supporting TG-1.0.x but the incompatibilities
undermine the primary reason to have a TG1 package in the first place. We
also don't have any assurances that upstream will maintain TG-1.1.x longer
than TG-1.0.x rather than deprecating both in favor of TG-1.5 (or TG-2-only)
at the same time.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 
Old 01-09-2011, 03:43 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 18:50, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 07:52:13PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 17:17 -0700, Jonathan Steffan wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:01 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> > > EPEL6 is going out of beta soon so on Monday I'll need to decide
>> > > whether to revert TG in EPEL6 to TG-1.0.x or work on fixing fas
>> > > further.
>> >
>> > Please don't restrict version upgrades in public repos because of FAS.
>> > That is not fair to our downstream. Worse case we can maintain an
>> > internal 1.0.x TG until we have all the bugs worked out for 1.1.x.
>> >
>>
>> It's not just about fas - the issue seems to be that the TG update is
>> NOT backward compatible which was the presumption on the pushed update
>> AIUI.
>>
> Yep. *Most people are moving onto TurboGears-2. So the only reason I want to
> have TurboGear-1.x is for compat with apps not yet ported. *Currently both
> TG-1.0 and TG-1.1 are supported branches by upstream. *Soon upstream is
> going to release TG-1.5.x as well. *TG-1.5.x is definitely not compatible
> (it's built on top of cherrypy3 instead of cherrypy2) but upstream told me
> (and in their release announcements, etc) that TG-1.1 was going to be
> compatible with TG-1.0.x. *Sadly, this isn't the case.
>

So how much of infrastructure is still using TG-1.0.x and how much
work will it be to move to TG2 since that may sooner or later be our
only alternative.

--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 
Old 01-09-2011, 05:21 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 09:43:34AM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 18:50, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 07:52:13PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 17:17 -0700, Jonathan Steffan wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 22:01 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> > > EPEL6 is going out of beta soon so on Monday I'll need to decide
> >> > > whether to revert TG in EPEL6 to TG-1.0.x or work on fixing fas
> >> > > further.
> >> >
> >> > Please don't restrict version upgrades in public repos because of FAS.
> >> > That is not fair to our downstream. Worse case we can maintain an
> >> > internal 1.0.x TG until we have all the bugs worked out for 1.1.x.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's not just about fas - the issue seems to be that the TG update is
> >> NOT backward compatible which was the presumption on the pushed update
> >> AIUI.
> >>
> > Yep. *Most people are moving onto TurboGears-2. So the only reason I want to
> > have TurboGear-1.x is for compat with apps not yet ported. *Currently both
> > TG-1.0 and TG-1.1 are supported branches by upstream. *Soon upstream is
> > going to release TG-1.5.x as well. *TG-1.5.x is definitely not compatible
> > (it's built on top of cherrypy3 instead of cherrypy2) but upstream told me
> > (and in their release announcements, etc) that TG-1.1 was going to be
> > compatible with TG-1.0.x. *Sadly, this isn't the case.
> >
>
> So how much of infrastructure is still using TG-1.0.x and how much
> work will it be to move to TG2 since that may sooner or later be our
> only alternative.
>
bodhi, mirrormanager, packagedb, elections, fas, smolt -- everything that's
written in TG except fedoracommunity is TG1.

The amount of work I don't know precisely -- I want to port elections to TG2
since that's the simplest app that we run. After that, mirrormanager is
also simple but it is using SQLObject and kid which we probably want to move
off of when we move to TG2 so the amount of porting work is a lot higher.
lmacken has ported bodhi to TG2 but he hasn't released the new version
(continuing to make releases off of the TG1 tree instead) so I don't know if
the porting is hard or something else is the holdup there.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 
Old 01-09-2011, 06:04 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 10:21 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> The amount of work I don't know precisely -- I want to port elections to TG2
> since that's the simplest app that we run. After that, mirrormanager is
> also simple but it is using SQLObject and kid which we probably want to move
> off of when we move to TG2 so the amount of porting work is a lot higher.
> lmacken has ported bodhi to TG2 but he hasn't released the new version
> (continuing to make releases off of the TG1 tree instead) so I don't know if
> the porting is hard or something else is the holdup there.

I would be willing to wager the delay in porting is the same delay in
porting anything - it just sucks to rewrite code you wrote before and
sift around new details of the new system.

It's just not fun.
-sv


_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 
Old 01-09-2011, 07:24 PM
Athmane Madjoudj
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

On 01/09/2011 08:04 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 10:21 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
>...
>
> I would be willing to wager the delay in porting is the same delay in
> porting anything - it just sucks to rewrite code you wrote before and
> sift around new details of the new system.
>
> It's just not fun.

What about using "homemade" stacks without mega-framework ie:

CherryPy + SQLObject or SQLAlchemy + Kid or Cheetah ...etc

Will this cost much effort ?


--
Athmane Madjoudj
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 
Old 01-09-2011, 08:20 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Turbogears downgraded on fas servers

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 09:24:37PM +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> On 01/09/2011 08:04 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 10:21 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> >...
> >
> > I would be willing to wager the delay in porting is the same delay in
> > porting anything - it just sucks to rewrite code you wrote before and
> > sift around new details of the new system.
> >
> > It's just not fun.
>
> What about using "homemade" stacks without mega-framework ie:
>
> CherryPy + SQLObject or SQLAlchemy + Kid or Cheetah ...etc
>
> Will this cost much effort ?
>
I would say yes. TurboGears1.0 and 1.1 are basically CherryPy2 + (SQLObject
or SQLAlchemy) + (Kid or genshi).

TurboGears-1.5 is CherryPy3 + SQLAlchemy + genshi.

TurboGears2 is Pylons + SQLAlchemy + genshi

By building on top of TG we get a little bit of abstraction from the
underlying layers (for instance, we could go with kid on all of those
frameworks even though it's not the default. Same with SQLObject, at least
for the TG-1.x's). We also get some niceties (like setup of some of the
components done for us).

If we built out own framework on top of the same underlying components
I think we'd just end up reinventing a lot of TurboGears code and still
having to deal with upstream version change... just at the level of
upgrading from CherryPy2 to CherryPy3 or kid to genshi instead of at the
level of TurboGears.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
infrastructure mailing list
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org