April 2013 - Release-team - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Release-team] auth
by Stephen Chan 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

Hi Dan, Yes, its kludgy, but by design. The problem is that the auth HTML docs need to have a location to deploy to, but since it is a disembodied client only module, there wasn't anyplace that made sense aside from creating that directory. I would be happy to change it to another location if you prefer it elsewhere. Steve On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > This has been deployed onto the clients instance. > > Maybe this hasn't come up before, but the documentation appears to deploy > to the authorization_server > service_dir instead of auth. Is that by design, or did something fail to > deploy properly? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> > > To: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> > > Cc: release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:04:50 AM > > Subject: auth > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > Can you deploy this into testing this morning? > > > > Tom > > >

1 0

Re: [Release-team] auth
by Nomi Harris 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

I think that makes sense. Hopefully we can get a better ticketing system in place very soon to make it easier to do this. :-) Nomi On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Thomas Brettin <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > what i would like to move towards is a ticket is created, then before we schedule something for the next release we check for outstanding tickets. > So in this case if steve wants to schedule auth for a minor release, we review auth for outstanding tickets first. I'm not saying that all outstanding tickets must be resolved before a minor release, just that we review them and let that influence our decision to put auth on the release schedule. > > Thoughts? > > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > >> Agreed. >> Nomi >> >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Michael Sneddon <mwsneddon(a)lbl.gov> wrote: >> >>> The problem is probably an out-of-date makefile. I assume we'll soon start to fail such modules that don't update to conform to the documentation standards as they are rereleased, and give owners a couple days during build week to make the fix. If it is critical to get auth running now though, then for this round it probably shouldn't be a deal beaker for deployment of auth. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: >>> Weren't there other modules that deployed their docs into non-standard directories as well? Not that I think that's a good thing; I'm just saying I don't think auth is the only culprit. >>> Nomi >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> > This has been deployed onto the clients instance. >>> > >>> > Maybe this hasn't come up before, but the documentation appears to deploy to the authorization_server >>> > service_dir instead of auth. Is that by design, or did something fail to deploy properly? >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> >> From: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>> >> To: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>> >> Cc: release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >>> >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:04:50 AM >>> >> Subject: auth >>> >> >>> >> Hi Dan, >>> >> >>> >> Can you deploy this into testing this morning? >>> >> >>> >> Tom >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Release-team mailing list >> Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >> https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team >

1 0

Re: [Release-team] auth
by Thomas Brettin 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

this is meant to address 'deal breakers' as you put it Mike. t On Apr 29, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Thomas Brettin <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > what i would like to move towards is a ticket is created, then before we schedule something for the next release we check for outstanding tickets. > So in this case if steve wants to schedule auth for a minor release, we review auth for outstanding tickets first. I'm not saying that all outstanding tickets must be resolved before a minor release, just that we review them and let that influence our decision to put auth on the release schedule. > > Thoughts? > > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > >> Agreed. >> Nomi >> >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Michael Sneddon <mwsneddon(a)lbl.gov> wrote: >> >>> The problem is probably an out-of-date makefile. I assume we'll soon start to fail such modules that don't update to conform to the documentation standards as they are rereleased, and give owners a couple days during build week to make the fix. If it is critical to get auth running now though, then for this round it probably shouldn't be a deal beaker for deployment of auth. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: >>> Weren't there other modules that deployed their docs into non-standard directories as well? Not that I think that's a good thing; I'm just saying I don't think auth is the only culprit. >>> Nomi >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> > This has been deployed onto the clients instance. >>> > >>> > Maybe this hasn't come up before, but the documentation appears to deploy to the authorization_server >>> > service_dir instead of auth. Is that by design, or did something fail to deploy properly? >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> >> From: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>> >> To: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>> >> Cc: release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >>> >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:04:50 AM >>> >> Subject: auth >>> >> >>> >> Hi Dan, >>> >> >>> >> Can you deploy this into testing this morning? >>> >> >>> >> Tom >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Release-team mailing list >> Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >> https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team >

1 0

Re: [Release-team] auth
by Thomas Brettin 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

what i would like to move towards is a ticket is created, then before we schedule something for the next release we check for outstanding tickets. So in this case if steve wants to schedule auth for a minor release, we review auth for outstanding tickets first. I'm not saying that all outstanding tickets must be resolved before a minor release, just that we review them and let that influence our decision to put auth on the release schedule. Thoughts? On Apr 29, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > Agreed. > Nomi > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Michael Sneddon <mwsneddon(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > >> The problem is probably an out-of-date makefile. I assume we'll soon start to fail such modules that don't update to conform to the documentation standards as they are rereleased, and give owners a couple days during build week to make the fix. If it is critical to get auth running now though, then for this round it probably shouldn't be a deal beaker for deployment of auth. >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: >> Weren't there other modules that deployed their docs into non-standard directories as well? Not that I think that's a good thing; I'm just saying I don't think auth is the only culprit. >> Nomi >> >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> > This has been deployed onto the clients instance. >> > >> > Maybe this hasn't come up before, but the documentation appears to deploy to the authorization_server >> > service_dir instead of auth. Is that by design, or did something fail to deploy properly? >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> >> >> To: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> >> >> Cc: release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >> >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:04:50 AM >> >> Subject: auth >> >> >> >> Hi Dan, >> >> >> >> Can you deploy this into testing this morning? >> >> >> >> Tom >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Release-team mailing list > Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team

1 0

Re: [Release-team] auth
by Nomi Harris 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

Agreed. Nomi On Apr 29, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Michael Sneddon <mwsneddon(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > The problem is probably an out-of-date makefile. I assume we'll soon start to fail such modules that don't update to conform to the documentation standards as they are rereleased, and give owners a couple days during build week to make the fix. If it is critical to get auth running now though, then for this round it probably shouldn't be a deal beaker for deployment of auth. > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > Weren't there other modules that deployed their docs into non-standard directories as well? Not that I think that's a good thing; I'm just saying I don't think auth is the only culprit. > Nomi > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > This has been deployed onto the clients instance. > > > > Maybe this hasn't come up before, but the documentation appears to deploy to the authorization_server > > service_dir instead of auth. Is that by design, or did something fail to deploy properly? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> > >> To: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> > >> Cc: release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:04:50 AM > >> Subject: auth > >> > >> Hi Dan, > >> > >> Can you deploy this into testing this morning? > >> > >> Tom > >>

1 0

Re: [Release-team] auth
by Michael Sneddon 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

The problem is probably an out-of-date makefile. I assume we'll soon start to fail such modules that don't update to conform to the documentation standards as they are rereleased, and give owners a couple days during build week to make the fix. If it is critical to get auth running now though, then for this round it probably shouldn't be a deal beaker for deployment of auth. On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > Weren't there other modules that deployed their docs into non-standard > directories as well? Not that I think that's a good thing; I'm just saying > I don't think auth is the only culprit. > Nomi > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > This has been deployed onto the clients instance. > > > > Maybe this hasn't come up before, but the documentation appears to > deploy to the authorization_server > > service_dir instead of auth. Is that by design, or did something fail > to deploy properly? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> > >> To: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> > >> Cc: release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:04:50 AM > >> Subject: auth > >> > >> Hi Dan, > >> > >> Can you deploy this into testing this morning? > >> > >> Tom > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Release-team mailing list > > Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > > https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team > > _______________________________________________ > Release-team mailing list > Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team >

1 0

Re: [Release-team] auth
by Nomi Harris 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

Weren't there other modules that deployed their docs into non-standard directories as well? Not that I think that's a good thing; I'm just saying I don't think auth is the only culprit. Nomi On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > This has been deployed onto the clients instance. > > Maybe this hasn't come up before, but the documentation appears to deploy to the authorization_server > service_dir instead of auth. Is that by design, or did something fail to deploy properly? > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> >> To: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> >> Cc: release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:04:50 AM >> Subject: auth >> >> Hi Dan, >> >> Can you deploy this into testing this morning? >> >> Tom >> > _______________________________________________ > Release-team mailing list > Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team

1 0

Re: [Release-team] auth
by Dan Olson 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

This has been deployed onto the clients instance. Maybe this hasn't come up before, but the documentation appears to deploy to the authorization_server service_dir instead of auth. Is that by design, or did something fail to deploy properly? ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> > To: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> > Cc: release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 10:04:50 AM > Subject: auth > > Hi Dan, > > Can you deploy this into testing this morning? > > Tom >

1 0

auth
by Thomas Brettin 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

Hi Dan, Can you deploy this into testing this morning? Tom

1 0

Re: [Release-team] minor release update last week
by Thomas Brettin 29 Apr '13

29 Apr '13

This was my mistake then. We need to get the auth libs out and the new auth_service out, installed into the dmg, ubuntu image and deployed to the service infrastructure. Tom On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:27 AM, "Land, Miriam L." <landml(a)ornl.gov> wrote: > It was my understanding from an email exchange between you and Steve that > auth_service would be last week and auth would be this week. > > Miriam > > On 4/29/13 10:25 AM, "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> I forgot to mention auth. What about this? >> >> >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 8:20 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> We can do one of two things here: >>> >>> 1. Deploy the latest invocation, and the last tested plan expression >>> client code. >>> 2. Deploy the plant expression client code only to the existing, >>> running invocation instance. >>> >>> option #2 is required if there is a version dependency on invocation in >>> the dmg or vm. >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>>> To: release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 8:08:53 AM >>>> Subject: [Release-team] minor release update last week >>>> >>>> On the release last week, genome annotation didn't make it through >>>> testing of the scripts. Miriam is going to dig a little deeper and >>>> iterate with Bob this week. >>>> >>>> So, no go on a new ubuntu or dmg release. >>>> >>>> However, I would like to get a new release of the invocation service >>>> to production, if it doesn't break anything. The issue here is that >>>> the plant expression services were manually put into a dev instance >>>> of the invocation service for the Feb release, but when we cut over >>>> to the production instance of the invocation service, the plant >>>> expression commands were lost. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Release-team mailing list >>>> Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >>>> https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Release-team mailing list >> Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >> https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team >

1 0