launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Florian Effenberger <floeff@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

thanks for the fast reply! I see... I thought LaunchPad was also
offered for production use but now I get the point that it is mainly
meant for developers. :-) Thanks for the fast help!

Florian

2009/10/25 Robert Collins <robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 13:36 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a second question regarding LaunchPad. As said, compiling it
>> out of the sources worked well thanks to the help of the mailing list.
>> However, I'm not convinced that for a production site, the open source
>> edition is the right choice. Are there any stable branches or upgrade
>> paths that can be applied for production sites? As far as I know, I
>> only can get the bleeding edge version from time to time, wich means
>> adjusting configuration files, checking for new features and the like.
>>
>> Honestly, is the open source LaunchPad ready for a production
>> environment, or should it be considered just as an option for
>> developers to work on the code, but not for hosting their own projects
>> with it?
>
> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad has a list of the branches of
> launchpad. Canonical doesn't carry a patchset outside of those branches
> - though our deployed branch is not up to date with devel, as we do QA
> at each release, but the patches landed to stablise production are all
> published.
>
> Launchpad isn't designed or intended to be used by single developers as
> a self-hosting site - its a gargantuan piece of code, with many moving
> parts. If you just want to host your projects, its much easier to get a
> high quality solution using the launchpad.net instance of Launchpad. If
> you want a customised version, you can often get that by submitting
> patches to make the launchpad.net instance behave how you want.
>
> If you do want to run a full hosting site, the the open source code -
> the same code Canonical stablises and hosts - is totally suitable as a
> base. However it cannot be deployed 'as-is'.
>
> Minimally, you *have to*:
> - rebrand it
> - QA your deployment
> - develop the operation experience needed to admin the servers, do
>  backups etc.
>
> I looked on the faq for the rebranding stuff, but I couldn't see it
> there - perhaps someone else knows where that is documented.
>
> -Rob
>