launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Tom Haddon <tom.haddon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 15:22 -0400, Gary Poster wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:17 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Tom Haddon wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 14:34 -0400, Karl Fogel wrote:
> >>> Gary Poster <gary.poster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>>> But Tom, does touching devpad affect production too?  If so, does
> >>>> someone know if production is using storm from sourcecode or a tgz?
> >>>
> >>> Tom can give an authoritative answer about production, but we are
> >>> *supposed* to have no devpad dependencies in Launchpad proper  
> >>> now.  If
> >>> we have any, it's a bug.
> >>
> >> Do you mean I can remove all sourcecode directories? This isn't
> >> something I was aware of, but would be more than happy to if it can  
> >> be
> >> confirmed.
> >
> >
> > Karl is referring to how we build our developer instances.  We don't  
> > use devpad for that.  We do use devpad for production.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure removing sourcecode directories generally would be a  
> > bad idea unless we replace our current rsync mechanism for  
> > production with some machinery mirroring what we do for devs.  That  
> > might be a good idea in the medium or long term, but for now I'd  
> > advocate sticking with the current machinery.
> >
> > My original email was sent out a while ago, by the way.  Tom  
> > verified at the time that touching devpad does not affect  
> > production, IIRC.
> 
> Gaa.  I was still unclear.  Let's try again.
> 
> - we have directories in sourcecode that we still care about.
> 
> - developers update those via lauchpad/bzr.
> 
> - deployment uses devpad.

Actually, no. Deployment assembles them on devpad but uses this config
to construct them (i.e. pulls them all from LP):

devpad:/code/rocketfuel/dists/devel/configs/canonical.com/launchpad/development

> 
> - maybe we should unify how we get those directories at some point.   
> it is probably not a priority for now.
> 
> - there are no (longer any) plans to entirely get rid of sourcecode.   
> If nothing else, we'll need it for signon and shipit, going forward.

Ok, is this going to make our plans for a buildbot instance for
production problematic? The problem is that currently it would always
use the latest version of sourcecode dirs, when that might not actually
be what we want in production....

Thanks, Tom

> 
> Gary