On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 11:19 AM, Florent Daigniere [email protected] wrote: On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 15:08 +0000, Ian wrote:
> Well, it's an improvement over what we have now even if it is > incomplete :) > Just for clarity, what is the procedure for deploying improvements? Pushing them to the existing repository on a different branch. Travis will auto-build/deploy from there if the build succeeds. The list of authorized people/process hasn't changed; anyone not on the list has to send a pull request. Where is the list? Any chance you can provide a top-down overview of the setup, or if this is documented anywhere can you point me to it? Maybe I've just been out-of-the-loop but I definitely don't have a good top-down understanding of the setup. At least 2 people should have a good enough understanding of this to admin it. > Now that it's live hopefully multiple people can fork it and start > pushing improvements which we can review and merge. > We should have an approval process for it - it would be ideal if we > had staging where changes could be reviewed live before being pushed > to production. That's the plan. When I get some time I will set it up (two branches, deploying to two different buckets/FQDNs, like we used to have). I'm puzzled, when you said: I won't have time to do anything more for the foreseeable future. I assumed it meant that we couldn't expect you to do any more work on this, did I misunderstand? > Florent, if you won't have time to do anything for the foreseeable > future, is there someone else familiar enough with how things are set > up that they can work on it? Right now there is still massive amounts of work to be done on the content; IMHO a two step review process would be overkill for now... Ok, I agree that we should minimize red tape while there is still a lot to be done. > It would be well worth spending some of our funding to hire an AWS > expert to ensure everything is set up nicely and minimize the risk of > something like this happening in future. I have a good guy in mind > (used to work for Amazon so very familiar with AWS). > Thoughts? I don't think it would be. This happened because we weren't using AWS yet. Our new setup is rock-solid and fairly standard: it's an S3 bucket where the content is served by cloudfront. I was mostly motivated by the fact that I thought you said you wouldn't be able to do any more, and yet you seem to be the only person who knows how everything fits together. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I just want to make sure we don't end up in a situation again where something breaks and the only person who can fix it is unavailable. If we can pay someone competent to help us to get to this point I think it would be well worth it - but happy to discuss if you think differently. Ian.
