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

Re: [Release-team] Google docs and folders
by Land, Miriam L. 26 Apr '13

26 Apr '13

I'm just going to plead ignorance. I didn't know how to put a document into the KBase Project, I didn't know that I could, and I didn't realize that it made a difference to people. It seems that the one and only document that I've ever created in Google docs is the one causing the problem. Sorry. I think I have it fixed now. Miriam On 4/25/13 6:32 PM, "Nomi Harris" <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: >I agree that juggling multiple google accounts is a pain; I wrestle with >that too (I have three--gmail, lbl, and a kbase one). Whenever I try to >visit a doc, it seems like I'm logged into the wrong account. >As far as Google Docs folders (such as the "KBase Project" folder), the >Google Docs interface makes it hard to see and use those. There are three >different ways I access Google docs: >- Individual docs (you can't easily move docs into folders from that >interface) >- docs.google.com (good way to see docs that have been shared with you, >but not folder) >- the Google Drive client, which lets you browse your google doc folders >as if they were on your computer. This one is easy to see folders in and >move docs between folders, but not easy (is it even possible?) to create >new docs. >So what I usually end up doing is creating a new Google doc via File -> >New, and then later, if I remember, looking at the Google drive folder >and moving the new doc into KBase Project (or the appropriate folder). >It's annoying, though. > >I had dinner the other day with two friends who work at Google and I >complained to them about the awkward Google docs interface and they both >agreed with me. > > Nomi > >On Apr 22, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > >> So, having multiple g* accounts is somewhat of a nightmare.. It looks >>like google is getting better about linking support for multiple >>accounts, but still not perfect. >> >> My dan(a)olsonsolutions.net account has access to the "KBase Project" >>folder. Are these docs not in that folder? If not, why? >> >> It seems like I run across this a lot - it would be nice if folks would >>uniformly use the "KBase Project" folder. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Nomi Harris" <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> >>> To: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> >>> Cc: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov>, release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >>> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:57:44 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Release-team] [Kbase-devel] starting a new minor release >>> >>> Dan, I gave you access to these docs with your personal email >>> address. (You already had access with your anl address.) >>> >>> On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: >>> >>>> For today's release meeting, do we want to look at / revise these? >>>> Minor Release Punch List: >>>> >>>>https://docs.google.com/a/lbl.gov/document/d/12e_r8w7ean5hTp-WYiKbWdxET >>>>7EmtohOH0TPuy3qUqs/edit >>>> (last edited Feb 1) >>> Sorry, wrong URL, should be >>> >>>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QxZtbKUtAp_7Dj6ArEEaQvUcyl92xn80PzIV >>>m_KtKLo/edit >>> >>>> Minor Release Standard Emails: >>>> >>>>https://docs.google.com/a/lbl.gov/document/d/12e_r8w7ean5hTp-WYiKbWdxET >>>>7EmtohOH0TPuy3qUqs/edit >>>> (last edited Feb 19) >>>> Nomi >>>> >>> >>> > >_______________________________________________ >Release-team mailing list >Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team

1 0

Google docs and folders
by Nomi Harris 25 Apr '13

25 Apr '13

I agree that juggling multiple google accounts is a pain; I wrestle with that too (I have three--gmail, lbl, and a kbase one). Whenever I try to visit a doc, it seems like I'm logged into the wrong account. As far as Google Docs folders (such as the "KBase Project" folder), the Google Docs interface makes it hard to see and use those. There are three different ways I access Google docs: - Individual docs (you can't easily move docs into folders from that interface) - docs.google.com (good way to see docs that have been shared with you, but not folder) - the Google Drive client, which lets you browse your google doc folders as if they were on your computer. This one is easy to see folders in and move docs between folders, but not easy (is it even possible?) to create new docs. So what I usually end up doing is creating a new Google doc via File -> New, and then later, if I remember, looking at the Google drive folder and moving the new doc into KBase Project (or the appropriate folder). It's annoying, though. I had dinner the other day with two friends who work at Google and I complained to them about the awkward Google docs interface and they both agreed with me. Nomi On Apr 22, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Dan Olson <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > So, having multiple g* accounts is somewhat of a nightmare.. It looks like google is getting better about linking support for multiple accounts, but still not perfect. > > My dan(a)olsonsolutions.net account has access to the "KBase Project" folder. Are these docs not in that folder? If not, why? > > It seems like I run across this a lot - it would be nice if folks would uniformly use the "KBase Project" folder. > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Nomi Harris" <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> >> To: "Thomas Brettin" <brettin(a)mcs.anl.gov> >> Cc: "Dan Olson" <dolson(a)mcs.anl.gov>, release-team(a)lists.kbase.us >> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:57:44 AM >> Subject: Re: [Release-team] [Kbase-devel] starting a new minor release >> >> Dan, I gave you access to these docs with your personal email >> address. (You already had access with your anl address.) >> >> On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: >> >>> For today's release meeting, do we want to look at / revise these? >>> Minor Release Punch List: >>> https://docs.google.com/a/lbl.gov/document/d/12e_r8w7ean5hTp-WYiKbWdxET7Emt… >>> (last edited Feb 1) >> Sorry, wrong URL, should be >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QxZtbKUtAp_7Dj6ArEEaQvUcyl92xn80PzIVm_K… >> >>> Minor Release Standard Emails: >>> https://docs.google.com/a/lbl.gov/document/d/12e_r8w7ean5hTp-WYiKbWdxET7Emt… >>> (last edited Feb 19) >>> Nomi >>> >> >>

1 0

Re: [Release-team] Minor Build Tech Doc update
by Thomas Brettin 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

looks like a deployment problem. Dan is it the deployment tools or the module itself? t On Apr 24, 2013, at 6:51 PM, Michael Sneddon <mwsneddon(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > I finished the initial review of API and command line documentation. > > All of the current docs have reasonably good coverage/descriptions, and properly deploy to webroot. However, the deployed documents for 'auth_service' and 'protein_info_service', as well as a couple of the dependent deployments, are not visible via: http://140.221.84.191/services/docs/ . I'm not sure if this is a major problem or not. > > Additionally, it's only a dependent service, but there was a strange error in the 'erdb_service' webroot directory, where the webroot directory was recursively copied somehow. See: http://140.221.84.191/services/docs/erdb_service/ > > > These issues are also documented in the Services spreadsheet. > > > -Michael > _______________________________________________ > Release-team mailing list > Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team

1 0

Minor Build Tech Doc update
by Michael Sneddon 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

I finished the initial review of API and command line documentation. All of the current docs have reasonably good coverage/descriptions, and properly deploy to webroot. However, the deployed documents for 'auth_service' and 'protein_info_service', as well as a couple of the dependent deployments, are not visible via: http://140.221.84.191/services/docs/ . I'm not sure if this is a major problem or not. Additionally, it's only a dependent service, but there was a strange error in the 'erdb_service' webroot directory, where the webroot directory was recursively copied somehow. See: http://140.221.84.191/services/docs/erdb_service/ These issues are also documented in the Services spreadsheet. -Michael

1 0

Re: [Release-team] release notes
by Land, Miriam L. 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

There are probably several pages that could be useful reminders. Miriam From: Michael Sneddon <mwsneddon(a)lbl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:01 PM To: Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "release-team(a)kbase.us<mailto:[email protected]>" <release-team(a)kbase.us<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Release-team] release notes Perhaps in the future we should always include a link to this page in the emails that first announce the next build? I have the impression that most developers have no idea that this page exists, and probably won't remember to check it before a build unless we explicitly tell them to. -michael On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Apr 23, 2013, at 8:06 AM, "Land, Miriam L." <landml(a)ornl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I believe that the guidelines already exist: > > https://trac.kbase.us/projects/kbase/wiki/TechDocChecking > > Miriam > > From: Michael Sneddon <mwsneddon(a)lbl.gov<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > Date: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:58 PM > To: Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > Cc: Miriam Land <landml(a)ornl.gov<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>>, "release-team(a)kbase.us<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>" <release-team(a)kbase.us<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> > Subject: Re: [Release-team] release notes > > I don't think it has been strictly enforced in the past, but I also think we should start requiring it. I know I completely forgot to update the release notes for Trees, which I should have done... Perhaps we should provide a very simple module checklist of what we require for a module to enter the release process, really just as a guideline to help developers remember everything that needs to be done. This exists as well: https://trac.kbase.us/projects/kbase/wiki/StandardDocuments We should check that document and make sure it's up-to-date and then send out a reminder to the developers. Nomi > Some of us had started adopting the convention of placing notes in a file named RELEASE_NOTES.txt in the root directory of each module. > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > Yes--I didn't get a chance to discuss this during today's meeting but I would like to see release notes for the services that are included in this minor release. This would be useful both internally (for testing, as Miriam notes) and externally (so users know what has changed). > Nomi > > On Apr 22, 2013, at 12:47 PM, "Land, Miriam L." <landml(a)ornl.gov<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > >> All, >> >> Do we have anything like release notes for this build? For testing purposes, it would be nice to have a list of things to specifically test for. >> >> Miriam >> _______________________________________________ >> Release-team mailing list >> Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team > > _______________________________________________ > Release-team mailing list > Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team > _______________________________________________ Release-team mailing list Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team

1 0

Re: [Release-team] Minor release punch list
by Thomas Brettin 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

I agree that it might not make sense to physically check things off in the future as long as the major transitions can happen. On Apr 24, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Nomi Harris <nlharris(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > Dear release team, > As requested during yesterday's release meeting, I have created a master copy of the Minor Release Punch List so that we can then leave it alone and make copies of it to use (and check off items) during each minor release. > I'm still not convinced that we need to go through the trouble of checking off each step, but maybe it makes sense for now. > I made some (mostly minor) edits and added some comments/questions. Please take a look at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tf7rEc2V0-3pIBhxzbkjLdzyF3Xf2MgoI1WnT_u… > and see if it looks ok (and if you have any answers to the questions). If so, I'll create an April 22 version and we can all start ticking off items. > Nomi > > > _______________________________________________ > Release-team mailing list > Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team

1 0

Minor release punch list
by Nomi Harris 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

Dear release team, As requested during yesterday's release meeting, I have created a master copy of the Minor Release Punch List so that we can then leave it alone and make copies of it to use (and check off items) during each minor release. I'm still not convinced that we need to go through the trouble of checking off each step, but maybe it makes sense for now. I made some (mostly minor) edits and added some comments/questions. Please take a look at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tf7rEc2V0-3pIBhxzbkjLdzyF3Xf2MgoI1WnT_u… and see if it looks ok (and if you have any answers to the questions). If so, I'll create an April 22 version and we can all start ticking off items. Nomi

1 0

Re: [Release-team] configuring test module deployments to point to dependent service urls
by Thomas Brettin 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

Yes, and I think Gavin prototyped something. I am putting this one on the list for a build sprint. On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Michael Sneddon <mwsneddon(a)lbl.gov> wrote: > It seems like we will ultimately need to specify not just the dependent module in DEPENDENCIES, but also the version of the dependent module that is required, and then actually figure out a way to resolve these dependencies to make sure deployed modules (and test deploys) are pointing to the correct endpoints, and that these endpoints will all be compatible once we push new versions to production. I know Gavin has been thinking lately about how to approach these issues too, so we may want to bring him into these discussions as well.

1 0

Re: [Release-team] configuring test module deployments to point to dependent service urls
by Dan Olson 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

In the test environment "kbase.us" points to the test deployment. It's all done with /etc/hosts. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Sneddon" <mwsneddon(a)lbl.gov> > To: release-team(a)kbase.us > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:44:09 PM > Subject: [Release-team] configuring test module deployments to point to dependent service urls > > > > > I'm digging though some of the test deployments, and it occurs to me > that for Trees, at least, the test deployment looks like it is > pointing to the production url of the ERDB service, not the new test > deployment of the ERDB service. This URL is configurable from the > deploy.cfg file, but as far as I know we don't have an official > process of changing dependent service endpoints during a test or > during a migration to production. > > > Everything still works for this minor release, because there were no > new changes to the ERDB module that affect the Tree service. > However, I think this is clearly a more general problem that we > haven't solved. If the new version of Trees depended on a new > version of the ERDB service that was not in production, how would we > configure the modules to be sure that it is tested correctly? Or > worse, if the new ERDB service had last minute changes that make it > incompatible with the new version of Trees, but all the test > deployments of Trees was still pointing to production urls, we > wouldn't catch the error until *after* we pushed everything out to > production. > > > It seems like we will ultimately need to specify not just the > dependent module in DEPENDENCIES, but also the version of the > dependent module that is required, and then actually figure out a > way to resolve these dependencies to make sure deployed modules (and > test deploys) are pointing to the correct endpoints, and that these > endpoints will all be compatible once we push new versions to > production. I know Gavin has been thinking lately about how to > approach these issues too, so we may want to bring him into these > discussions as well. > > > Working out these issues more thoroughly might be a good use of some > our time during the May meeting. > > > Any thoughts on this? Is there something I'm missing? > > > -michael > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Release-team mailing list > Release-team(a)lists.kbase.us > https://lists.kbase.us/mailman/listinfo/release-team >

1 0

configuring test module deployments to point to dependent service urls
by Michael Sneddon 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

I'm digging though some of the test deployments, and it occurs to me that for Trees, at least, the test deployment looks like it is pointing to the production url of the ERDB service, not the new test deployment of the ERDB service. This URL is configurable from the deploy.cfg file, but as far as I know we don't have an official process of changing dependent service endpoints during a test or during a migration to production. Everything still works for this minor release, because there were no new changes to the ERDB module that affect the Tree service. However, I think this is clearly a more general problem that we haven't solved. If the new version of Trees depended on a new version of the ERDB service that was not in production, how would we configure the modules to be sure that it is tested correctly? Or worse, if the new ERDB service had last minute changes that make it incompatible with the new version of Trees, but all the test deployments of Trees was still pointing to production urls, we wouldn't catch the error until *after* we pushed everything out to production. It seems like we will ultimately need to specify not just the dependent module in DEPENDENCIES, but also the version of the dependent module that is required, and then actually figure out a way to resolve these dependencies to make sure deployed modules (and test deploys) are pointing to the correct endpoints, and that these endpoints will all be compatible once we push new versions to production. I know Gavin has been thinking lately about how to approach these issues too, so we may want to bring him into these discussions as well. Working out these issues more thoroughly might be a good use of some our time during the May meeting. Any thoughts on this? Is there something I'm missing? -michael

1 0