On 10.10.2015 10:14, Tony Stevenson wrote:
> What I will say is that:
> - if you guys produced a .deb package that did all the things above
> - this .deb was hosted in a repo we'd happily pull from
> - the subversion project were willing to support the upgrade process and were available if the fan was to meet the shit
> - you accept that if we feel we cannot resolve any issues without rolling back - we will do just that.
> If you can do this. You may well find us saying yes that much more easily.
> Please also remember that we have SLAs we have to work towards - so upgrades need be announced a minimum of 72hours prior, but the more the better.
> I am happy to continue this thread if you want to ask more questions. But the 'it must be a package' - 'from a repo we trust' - 'all changes managed by puppet' are firm policies that we will not shift from.
> So if you can work within those constraints we might be able to do something.
This is actually the sort of answer I was hoping for.
While we've had packaging scripts in our repo, these were never any kind
of priority. I don't think it makes sense to change that. But I also see
no reason not to maintain packages for our own use within the ASF somewhere.
Assuming a "trusted repo" is available somewhere in our infrastructure,
I'd be happy to have a go at producing a package for 1.9.x. I expect
we're able to test packages and deployments before going live, yes?
Received on 2015-10-10 10:28:00 CEST