I've done some testing this morning on publictest6.fedoraproject.org/zikula with some of the test criteria listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Insight_Testing.
In short - newly created users in fakeFAS (pt3/accounts) are getting added to the users group in zikula when they log in for the first time, but ALL users - and this includes ALL standard users, ones NOT in the Administration group, not just New Users - get a 403 error. I recall that we've had this error in the past, but I can't find the ticket for it. (I thought it had been fixed.)
Most of the details are in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Insight_Testing. In short - I can't test any of the items related to comments being moderated for first-time posters who are registered users, or the automatic approval of second-time poster comments - since I can't log in and do anything with anyone who is a standard user. We need to resolve the 403 issue problem ASAP for testing to move forward.
-Robyn
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Robyn Bergeron robyn.bergeron@gmail.com wrote:
I've done some testing this morning on publictest6.fedoraproject.org/zikula with some of the test criteria listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Insight_Testing.
In short - newly created users in fakeFAS (pt3/accounts) are getting added to the users group in zikula when they log in for the first time, but ALL users - and this includes ALL standard users, ones NOT in the Administration group, not just New Users - get a 403 error. I recall that we've had this error in the past, but I can't find the ticket for it. (I thought it had been fixed.)
Most of the details are in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Insight_Testing. In short - I can't test any of the items related to comments being moderated for first-time posters who are registered users, or the automatic approval of second-time poster comments - since I can't log in and do anything with anyone who is a standard user. We need to resolve the 403 issue problem ASAP for testing to move forward.
Thanks Robyn -- Smooge and I are looking at it right now. First we need to figure out how to enable full logging so that we can see what's happening to generate the 403.
Hopefully Matheo should be joining us shortly.
Paul
Ok AuthFAS is finally working. It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme (it was an old copy anyways).
In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by convenience or not.
About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more. I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
Greetings
Mateo Mis principios... son mis fines
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
Ok AuthFAS is finally working. It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
Glad to hear you found it!
In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme (it was an old copy anyways).
So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master branch?
In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by convenience or not.
Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the fedora-insight-theme git repo?
About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more. I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
Greetings
Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye folks have some input to give here.
Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments. We released a new version of EZComments 2.0.0. Can you notify the maintainer please? It would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or, possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with out CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/). All we need to do is add an XML build file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it can be all sorted out automatically.
Regards,
Drak
On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
Ok AuthFAS is finally working. It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
Glad to hear you found it!
In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme (it was an old copy anyways).
So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master branch?
In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by convenience or not.
Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the fedora-insight-theme git repo?
About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more. I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
Greetings
Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye folks have some input to give here.
-- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Forgot the link: http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-component...
Regards,
http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-componentid-42.htm Drak
On 7 June 2010 22:47, Drak drak@zikula.org wrote:
Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments. We released a new version of EZComments 2.0.0. Can you notify the maintainer please? It would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or, possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with out CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/). All we need to do is add an XML build file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it can be all sorted out automatically.
Regards,
Drak
On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
Ok AuthFAS is finally working. It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
Glad to hear you found it!
In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme (it was an old copy anyways).
So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master branch?
In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by convenience or not.
Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the fedora-insight-theme git repo?
About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more. I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
Greetings
Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye folks have some input to give here.
-- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:49:12PM +0545, Drak wrote:
Forgot the link: [1]http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-component... Regards, Drak
We need Zikula 1.2.3 before we can use EZComments 2.0.0, according to this:
http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-component...
On 8 June 2010 03:10, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
We need Zikula 1.2.3 before we can use EZComments 2.0.0, according to this:
http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-component...
Is there any particular reason Fedora isnt using 1.2.3 yet?
Drak
2010/6/7 Drak drak@zikula.org:
On 8 June 2010 03:10, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
We need Zikula 1.2.3 before we can use EZComments 2.0.0, according to this:
http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-component...
Is there any particular reason Fedora isnt using 1.2.3 yet?
I was hoping to get testing on it - it sat in updates-testing for 24 days. I pushed to updates last night.
1.2.3 should be in updates-testing for EPEL
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:49:12PM +0545, Drak wrote:
Forgot the link: [1]http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-component... Regards, Drak
Drak,
http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/browser/tags/EZComments_2.0.0/pnjavascript...
I visited that site, which lists only "(C) 2003-2010" for licensing rights. The aforementioned file no longer exists there. Can you point me to a public URL that shows the licensing for this file? (And hopefully the file itself?)
On 9 June 2010 06:06:50 UTC+5:45, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.comwrote:
http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/browser/tags/EZComments_2.0.0/pnjavascript...
I visited that site, which lists only "(C) 2003-2010" for licensing rights. The aforementioned file no longer exists there. Can you point me to a public URL that shows the licensing for this file? (And hopefully the file itself?)
I followed the version history all the way back to the file inclusion 5 years ago :-P
http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/changeset/216/trunk/EZComments/modules/EZC...
There never way anything in the header.
I checked the URL at archive.org and found this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050426083521/http://www.dustindiaz.com/archives...
the main domain still exists http://www.dustindiaz.com/ then I found this:
http://www.dustindiaz.com/check-one-check-all-javascript/ which looks like the script but there doesnt appear to be any license I can see.
Regards,
010/6/8 Drak drak@zikula.org:
On 9 June 2010 06:06:50 UTC+5:45, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/browser/tags/EZComments_2.0.0/pnjavascript... I visited that site, which lists only "(C) 2003-2010" for licensing rights. The aforementioned file no longer exists there. Can you point me to a public URL that shows the licensing for this file? (And hopefully the file itself?)
I followed the version history all the way back to the file inclusion 5 years ago :-P http://code.zikula.org/ezcomments/changeset/216/trunk/EZComments/modules/EZC... There never way anything in the header. I checked the URL at archive.org and found this: http://web.archive.org/web/20050426083521/http://www.dustindiaz.com/archives... the main domain still exists http://www.dustindiaz.com/%C2%A0then I found this: http://www.dustindiaz.com/check-one-check-all-javascript/%C2%A0which looks like the script but there doesnt appear to be any license I can see. Regards, Drak
No license means that Copyright is the default - and we need to strip this out of the zikula we ship and are using.
It also means, that sans an explicit license Zikula, and by extension Fedora for distributing it are violating copyright on this piece of code.
On 9 June 2010 06:39, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
No license means that Copyright is the default - and we need to strip this out of the zikula we ship and are using.
It also means, that sans an explicit license Zikula, and by extension Fedora for distributing it are violating copyright on this piece of code.
Sure. Should be easy to swap out with something else, it's just checkbox toggle, we can find a replacement or write something in a flash I guess. FYI - EZComments is not a Zikula product, it's just a 3rd party module - anyhow, we'll sort it.
Drak
On 9 June 2010 06:46, Drak drak@zikula.org wrote:
On 9 June 2010 06:39, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
No license means that Copyright is the default - and we need to strip this out of the zikula we ship and are using.
EZComments js script has been swapped out with an own solution. You can re-download here: http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-component...
Please re-download the entire package because some templates had to be altered for the new js syntax.
Regards,
Drak
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 02:25:09PM +0545, Drak wrote:
On 9 June 2010 06:46, Drak <[1]drak@zikula.org> wrote:
On 9 June 2010 06:39, David Nalley <[2]david@gnsa.us> wrote: No license means that Copyright is the default - and we need to strip this out of the zikula we ship and are using.
EZComments js script has been swapped out with an own solution. You can re-download here:[3]http://community.zikula.org/module-Extensions-display-ot-component-component... Please re-download the entire package because some templates had to be altered for the new js syntax. Regards, Drak
Just out of curiosity, do third parties often switch tag antecedents in this way? Last night if I recall correctly '2.0.0' -> r737, but today it's r741. Won't this alter other downstream consumers of that module? That's up to the EZComment developers of course, it just seems like an unusual release management process.
On 9 June 2010 19:35, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
Just out of curiosity, do third parties often switch tag antecedents in this way? Last night if I recall correctly '2.0.0' -> r737, but today it's r741. Won't this alter other downstream consumers of that module? That's up to the EZComment developers of course, it just seems like an unusual release management process.
Zikula project isnt responsible for the module, it's 3rd party so we don't have full control over the module release process - I think this was just an exception because there is uncertainty over licensing/copyright ownership so they panicked. The diff is on just two files, 1 to switch out the js for own solution, and 2 to update one template that uses the JS references. This is another reason to get everything you guys use into CI, then the build and release process is automated.
Regards,
Drak
2010/6/7 Drak drak@zikula.org:
Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments. We released a new version of EZComments 2.0.0. Can you notify the maintainer please? It would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or, possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with out CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/). All we need to do is add an XML build file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it can be all sorted out automatically.
For reference, the EZComments ticket in fedora: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2207
Getting us to EZComments 2.0 appears to be the following process (please excuse my non-coder descriptions, folks, and I may be wrong about some / all of this): * Upgrade to another version of php (I'm not clear on all the details here, but I'm pretty sure this is on the list.) * Upgrade to zikula 1.2.3 * Upgrade / add in EZComments 2.0 module (this may be part of zikula 1.2.3, I don't know, and can't tell offhand) * Patch back any changes made over the weekend WRT AuthFAS stuff, etc. * Copy over our existing settings * Hope we don't have anything customized that is tied to existing version of zikula - if we do, then deal with that as well. * Test, test, test functionality.
I'm guessing that that process would take at least a week - probably more, particularly given that a number of us are going to be at an event this Wednesday - Sunday/Monday. Tuesday is our 6/15 deadline for having a functional version of Fedora Insight up and running. (Incidentally - I may be entirely overestimating the time for upgrading. I don't know if it's possible to throw together something in the next day or two so that we can test this functionality in 1.2.3 w/EZComments 2.0 on a publictest machine.)
I didn't see any ticket related to this phenomenon in the list of all tickets, open and closed, for EZComments. I can file a ticket - albeit against EZComments 1.6.1. I'm wondering, however, if this is something that works properly in EZComments 2.0 - either "just works," or was a bug that was never documented and is fixed, etc. I've asked in the forums for some help / confirmation / verification that this isn't user error - http://community.zikula.org/module-Forum-viewtopic-topic-57991.htm - if it's not user error, I'll file something.
Not to jump the gun on any feedback I might get there - but I expect we're going to wind up in one of four situations:
1: Someone gloriously tells Robyn that this is an easy configuration tweak. 2: We get confirmation that an upgrade will solve our problems; we upgrade over the next week, problem is fixed. 3: We upgrade over the next week and find out that this is still an issue. We'll need to file a ticket against EZComments 2.0, and wait for a fix. 4: We get confirmation that an upgrade will not solve our problems, and we need a fix. We'll then have to decide if / how long we want to wait, or if we want to modify our moderation requirements.
I would like to avoid Situation #3 altogether. I'm not a fan of asking people to commit time, in an emergency fashion during a terribly busy week, to a solution that may not solve anything at all. IMO, we need to get answers that put us in Situations 1 or 2 (or even 4) by, I'd say, Wednesday (Paul, are we moving the FI meeting to back one day to Wednesday, as some of us are out Thursday?). If we do not have answers, I suggest we make some decisions on Wednesday.
Decision options include: * How long will upgrade realistically take - including testing, etc.? (This is more of a need an answer than decision, but..) * Assess whether we want to rethink moderation - we could temporarily not have moderation, and use spam filters, etc. Or, moderate -everything-. If we're willing to make accommodations here, we could upgrade and then hope it works, if not, plan M (modify moderation). Basically - is this a blocker? * Moving out deadline to accompany possibility that we will need a fix, that upgrades will not be smooth, and give the lot of us on travel a few days of breathing room. * Put FI on hold and go back to the drawing board.
In the meantime, I will be keeping my fingers crossed that this is a configuration error or something that can be confirmed as working in EZComments 2.0. :D I'd also add that some experienced eyeballs looking at the existing configuration settings would be welcomed, to make sure I'm not insane (this has been known to happen... pretty much daily....)
-Robyn
Regards,
Drak
On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
Ok AuthFAS is finally working. It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
Glad to hear you found it!
In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme (it was an old copy anyways).
So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master branch?
In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by convenience or not.
Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the fedora-insight-theme git repo?
About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more. I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
Greetings
Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye folks have some input to give here.
-- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Robyn,
You do not need to upgrade your version of server PHP at all. As I said, Zikula 1.2.3 actually works with PHP 4.3.0 or greater - there was a mistake on the download page which I have corrected.
The upgrade process for Zikula 1.2.3 is just a matter of a) copy new files b) run upgrade.php c) delete install*, upgrade.php
This will not affect your AuthFAS at all.
To upgrade EZComments, simply copy the new module files, then go to the admin -> modules ->regenerate list, then click upgrade on the EZComments module.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Drak
On 8 June 2010 13:27, Robyn Bergeron robyn.bergeron@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/7 Drak drak@zikula.org:
Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments. We released a
new
version of EZComments 2.0.0. Can you notify the maintainer please? It would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or, possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with
out
CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/). All we need to do is add an XML
build
file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it
can
be all sorted out automatically.
For reference, the EZComments ticket in fedora: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2207
Getting us to EZComments 2.0 appears to be the following process (please excuse my non-coder descriptions, folks, and I may be wrong about some / all of this):
- Upgrade to another version of php (I'm not clear on all the details
here, but I'm pretty sure this is on the list.)
- Upgrade to zikula 1.2.3
- Upgrade / add in EZComments 2.0 module (this may be part of zikula
1.2.3, I don't know, and can't tell offhand)
- Patch back any changes made over the weekend WRT AuthFAS stuff, etc.
- Copy over our existing settings
- Hope we don't have anything customized that is tied to existing
version of zikula - if we do, then deal with that as well.
- Test, test, test functionality.
I'm guessing that that process would take at least a week - probably more, particularly given that a number of us are going to be at an event this Wednesday - Sunday/Monday. Tuesday is our 6/15 deadline for having a functional version of Fedora Insight up and running. (Incidentally - I may be entirely overestimating the time for upgrading. I don't know if it's possible to throw together something in the next day or two so that we can test this functionality in 1.2.3 w/EZComments 2.0 on a publictest machine.)
I didn't see any ticket related to this phenomenon in the list of all tickets, open and closed, for EZComments. I can file a ticket - albeit against EZComments 1.6.1. I'm wondering, however, if this is something that works properly in EZComments 2.0 - either "just works," or was a bug that was never documented and is fixed, etc. I've asked in the forums for some help / confirmation / verification that this isn't user error - http://community.zikula.org/module-Forum-viewtopic-topic-57991.htm - if it's not user error, I'll file something.
Not to jump the gun on any feedback I might get there - but I expect we're going to wind up in one of four situations:
1: Someone gloriously tells Robyn that this is an easy configuration tweak. 2: We get confirmation that an upgrade will solve our problems; we upgrade over the next week, problem is fixed. 3: We upgrade over the next week and find out that this is still an issue. We'll need to file a ticket against EZComments 2.0, and wait for a fix. 4: We get confirmation that an upgrade will not solve our problems, and we need a fix. We'll then have to decide if / how long we want to wait, or if we want to modify our moderation requirements.
I would like to avoid Situation #3 altogether. I'm not a fan of asking people to commit time, in an emergency fashion during a terribly busy week, to a solution that may not solve anything at all. IMO, we need to get answers that put us in Situations 1 or 2 (or even 4) by, I'd say, Wednesday (Paul, are we moving the FI meeting to back one day to Wednesday, as some of us are out Thursday?). If we do not have answers, I suggest we make some decisions on Wednesday.
Decision options include:
- How long will upgrade realistically take - including testing, etc.?
(This is more of a need an answer than decision, but..)
- Assess whether we want to rethink moderation - we could temporarily
not have moderation, and use spam filters, etc. Or, moderate -everything-. If we're willing to make accommodations here, we could upgrade and then hope it works, if not, plan M (modify moderation). Basically - is this a blocker?
- Moving out deadline to accompany possibility that we will need a
fix, that upgrades will not be smooth, and give the lot of us on travel a few days of breathing room.
- Put FI on hold and go back to the drawing board.
In the meantime, I will be keeping my fingers crossed that this is a configuration error or something that can be confirmed as working in EZComments 2.0. :D I'd also add that some experienced eyeballs looking at the existing configuration settings would be welcomed, to make sure I'm not insane (this has been known to happen... pretty much daily....)
-Robyn
Regards,
Drak
On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
Ok AuthFAS is finally working. It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
Glad to hear you found it!
In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme (it was an old copy anyways).
So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master branch?
In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by convenience or not.
Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the fedora-insight-theme git repo?
About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more. I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
Greetings
Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye folks have some input to give here.
-- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
2010/6/8 Drak drak@zikula.org:
Robyn, You do not need to upgrade your version of server PHP at all. As I said, Zikula 1.2.3 actually works with PHP 4.3.0 or greater - there was a mistake on the download page which I have corrected.
My mistake. Sorry!
The upgrade process for Zikula 1.2.3 is just a matter of a) copy new files b) run upgrade.php c) delete install*, upgrade.php This will not affect your AuthFAS at all. To upgrade EZComments, simply copy the new module files, then go to the admin -> modules ->regenerate list, then click upgrade on the EZComments module. Hope this helps. Regards, Drak
Perhaps someone can clear some things up for me before I stick my foot further into my mouth. :)
* How long will this upgrade take us (not the physical typing of things and copying files, but builds / packaging / whatever magic needs to hapen) - can we get this up and running by Wednesday, Friday, ?, for basic testing to see if this will fix the EZComments issue? * When 1.2.3 goes into staging and/or production - would we really be installing an old version, then upgrading to 1.2.3, following the steps above? Or would it be advisable to install 1.2.3 from scratch? If so, would we want to just install 1.2.3 from scratch in a new instance on pt6, so that we can have a documented, repeatable process?
-Robyn
On 8 June 2010 13:27, Robyn Bergeron robyn.bergeron@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/7 Drak drak@zikula.org:
Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments. We released a new version of EZComments 2.0.0. Can you notify the maintainer please? It would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or, possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with out CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/). All we need to do is add an XML build file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it can be all sorted out automatically.
For reference, the EZComments ticket in fedora: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2207
Getting us to EZComments 2.0 appears to be the following process (please excuse my non-coder descriptions, folks, and I may be wrong about some / all of this):
- Upgrade to another version of php (I'm not clear on all the details
here, but I'm pretty sure this is on the list.)
- Upgrade to zikula 1.2.3
- Upgrade / add in EZComments 2.0 module (this may be part of zikula
1.2.3, I don't know, and can't tell offhand)
- Patch back any changes made over the weekend WRT AuthFAS stuff, etc.
- Copy over our existing settings
- Hope we don't have anything customized that is tied to existing
version of zikula - if we do, then deal with that as well.
- Test, test, test functionality.
I'm guessing that that process would take at least a week - probably more, particularly given that a number of us are going to be at an event this Wednesday - Sunday/Monday. Tuesday is our 6/15 deadline for having a functional version of Fedora Insight up and running. (Incidentally - I may be entirely overestimating the time for upgrading. I don't know if it's possible to throw together something in the next day or two so that we can test this functionality in 1.2.3 w/EZComments 2.0 on a publictest machine.)
I didn't see any ticket related to this phenomenon in the list of all tickets, open and closed, for EZComments. I can file a ticket - albeit against EZComments 1.6.1. I'm wondering, however, if this is something that works properly in EZComments 2.0 - either "just works," or was a bug that was never documented and is fixed, etc. I've asked in the forums for some help / confirmation / verification that this isn't user error - http://community.zikula.org/module-Forum-viewtopic-topic-57991.htm - if it's not user error, I'll file something.
Not to jump the gun on any feedback I might get there - but I expect we're going to wind up in one of four situations:
1: Someone gloriously tells Robyn that this is an easy configuration tweak. 2: We get confirmation that an upgrade will solve our problems; we upgrade over the next week, problem is fixed. 3: We upgrade over the next week and find out that this is still an issue. We'll need to file a ticket against EZComments 2.0, and wait for a fix. 4: We get confirmation that an upgrade will not solve our problems, and we need a fix. We'll then have to decide if / how long we want to wait, or if we want to modify our moderation requirements.
I would like to avoid Situation #3 altogether. I'm not a fan of asking people to commit time, in an emergency fashion during a terribly busy week, to a solution that may not solve anything at all. IMO, we need to get answers that put us in Situations 1 or 2 (or even 4) by, I'd say, Wednesday (Paul, are we moving the FI meeting to back one day to Wednesday, as some of us are out Thursday?). If we do not have answers, I suggest we make some decisions on Wednesday.
Decision options include:
- How long will upgrade realistically take - including testing, etc.?
(This is more of a need an answer than decision, but..)
- Assess whether we want to rethink moderation - we could temporarily
not have moderation, and use spam filters, etc. Or, moderate -everything-. If we're willing to make accommodations here, we could upgrade and then hope it works, if not, plan M (modify moderation). Basically - is this a blocker?
- Moving out deadline to accompany possibility that we will need a
fix, that upgrades will not be smooth, and give the lot of us on travel a few days of breathing room.
- Put FI on hold and go back to the drawing board.
In the meantime, I will be keeping my fingers crossed that this is a configuration error or something that can be confirmed as working in EZComments 2.0. :D I'd also add that some experienced eyeballs looking at the existing configuration settings would be welcomed, to make sure I'm not insane (this has been known to happen... pretty much daily....)
-Robyn
Regards,
Drak
On 7 June 2010 22:09, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:01:15PM -0300, Mateo TibaPalacios wrote:
Ok AuthFAS is finally working. It was an 'invisible' typo with the administrators group ID :-|
Glad to hear you found it!
In the other hand, I've compared pt6-capture and there were nothing to add to the master. I've also removed the theme from fedora-zikula because fedora-insight-theme is the repository to work in the theme (it was an old copy anyways).
So is the plan to merge the pt6-capture branch in git to the master branch?
In the other hand, I guess that CSS diff is not worth, because the current theme seems more matured, and old copies are just that: old stuff, that in CSS can be quite tricky to know what was removed by convenience or not.
Yes, that made it really hard to capture changes with meaningful commits in git. ;-) But were you able to capture these commits from the pt6-capture branch in fedora-zikula, and make them part of the fedora-insight-theme git repo?
About the theme, I would like to know if there's any visual stuff (designer's thoughts) to enrich the theme a little more. I'm available to tweak it and make all the fixes/wishes a reality ;-)
Greetings
Hopefully Mo (mizmo), Hiemanshu (gwerra), or some other design-eye folks have some input to give here.
-- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
On 8 June 2010 14:06, Robyn Bergeron robyn.bergeron@gmail.com wrote:
The upgrade process for Zikula 1.2.3 is just a matter of a) copy new files b) run upgrade.php c) delete install*, upgrade.php This will not affect your AuthFAS at all. To upgrade EZComments, simply copy the new module files, then go to the admin -> modules ->regenerate list, then click upgrade on the EZComments
Perhaps someone can clear some things up for me before I stick my foot further into my mouth. :)
Well, I dont know the overhead of your .rpm creation process, but upgrading a site will take 5 minutes.
- How long will this upgrade take us (not the physical typing of
things and copying files, but builds / packaging / whatever magic needs to hapen) - can we get this up and running by Wednesday, Friday, ?, for basic testing to see if this will fix the EZComments issue?
- When 1.2.3 goes into staging and/or production - would we really be
installing an old version, then upgrading to 1.2.3, following the steps above? Or would it be advisable to install 1.2.3 from scratch? If so, would we want to just install 1.2.3 from scratch in a new instance on pt6, so that we can have a documented, repeatable process?
For the future, I would really like to start some continuous integration process for packaging - this was maintainers can simply review the created packages and push them rather than have to spend time doing everything manually.
Regards,
Drak
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 12:42:34AM -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
2010/6/7 Drak drak@zikula.org:
Possibly OT, but I saw a ticket relating to EZComments. We released a new version of EZComments 2.0.0. Can you notify the maintainer please? It would be good if the maintainers can follow out extDB xml/rss feeds, or, possibly we can assist the maintainers by autopackaging for Fedora with out CI server (http://ci.zikula.org/). All we need to do is add an XML build file to each module project according to the maintainers wishes and it can be all sorted out automatically.
For reference, the EZComments ticket in fedora: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2207
Getting us to EZComments 2.0 appears to be the following process (please excuse my non-coder descriptions, folks, and I may be wrong about some / all of this):
- Upgrade to another version of php (I'm not clear on all the details
here, but I'm pretty sure this is on the list.)
Nope, we don't need to do this after all, per Drak's earlier comments on the list. This was a mistake on the Zikula website.
- Upgrade to zikula 1.2.3
Yes, via the new RPM that David Nalley has prepared.
There are some additional fixes that RPM needs, that Stephen Smoogen discovered and was discussing with him. I'm not sure those fixes are in the 1.2.3 RPM that's currently available, but they can be added later without affecting us greatly.
- Upgrade / add in EZComments 2.0 module (this may be part of zikula
1.2.3, I don't know, and can't tell offhand)
It's not. The RPM is a separate RPM, maintained by Mel Chua apparently:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/zikula-module-EZComments
Mel Chua was the only person who has access to do that packaging. I've just added myself to the list to get these changes moving, since I assume that she didn't mean to silo that work.
There are a few modules that are part of Zikula itself, and the rest are separate packages:
[pfrields@publictest6 ~]$ rpm -qa zikula-module* zikula-module-crpTag-0.1.3-3.el5 zikula-module-scribite-3.2-3.el5 zikula-module-fedora-fasauth-0.3-1.el5 zikula-module-News-2.4.1-3.el5 zikula-module-pagemaster-0.3.1-3.fc11 zikula-module-EZComments-0.1.61-1.el5.fedora.infra <-- *we'll upgrade this zikula-module-MultiHook-5.0-4.el5 zikula-module-filterutil-0-0.3.20090915svn15.el5 zikula-module-advanced_polls-1.5.1-1.el5
If you substitue those package names with the link I provided above, you should be able to find out if we have any similar "SPoF" situations with any of these modules.
- Patch back any changes made over the weekend WRT AuthFAS stuff,
etc.
Since the AuthFAS module is provided in a separate RPM, it won't be affected by the upgrade.
- Copy over our existing settings
No need, the Zikula DB already contains all the settings and should upgrade cleanly.
- Hope we don't have anything customized that is tied to existing
version of zikula - if we do, then deal with that as well.
We can check using 'rpm -V zikula'. I found that other than our /etc/zikula/config.php file (expected differences), there's a change that's been made directly on /usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php.
I want to remind our Zikula friends that making these changes directly on the system is *discouraged* since we use packaged software from EPEL to deploy Zikula. This may be a patch that was tested and simply not removed. If that kind of change is not documented, however, it raises the risk of regressions when we upgrade.
Drak, can you check that this change is included in Zikula 1.2.3?
======================= ** diff follows ** =========================== --- /tmp/zikula/usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php 2010-02-28 04:44:59.000000000 +0000 +++ /usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php 2010-04-19 03:35:46.000000000 +0000 @@ -277,8 +277,8 @@ function searchOverrides($domain, $path) { $lang = ZLanguage::transformFS($this->languageCode); - $prefix = $_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] . pnGetBaseURI(); - $override = "$prefix/config/locale/$lang/LC_MESSAGES/$domain.mo"; + $prefix = realpath(realpath(dirname(__FILE__)) . DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR . '..'); +$override = "$prefix/config/locale/$lang/LC_MESSAGES/$domain.mo"; return (is_readable($override) ? "$prefix/config/locale" : "$prefix/$path"); } ======================================================================
- Test, test, test functionality.
I'm guessing that that process would take at least a week - probably more, particularly given that a number of us are going to be at an event this Wednesday - Sunday/Monday. Tuesday is our 6/15 deadline for having a functional version of Fedora Insight up and running. (Incidentally - I may be entirely overestimating the time for upgrading. I don't know if it's possible to throw together something in the next day or two so that we can test this functionality in 1.2.3 w/EZComments 2.0 on a publictest machine.)
We should be able to get this going today.
I didn't see any ticket related to this phenomenon in the list of all tickets, open and closed, for EZComments. I can file a ticket - albeit against EZComments 1.6.1. I'm wondering, however, if this is something that works properly in EZComments 2.0 - either "just works," or was a bug that was never documented and is fixed, etc. I've asked in the forums for some help / confirmation / verification that this isn't user error - http://community.zikula.org/module-Forum-viewtopic-topic-57991.htm - if it's not user error, I'll file something.
Not to jump the gun on any feedback I might get there - but I expect we're going to wind up in one of four situations:
1: Someone gloriously tells Robyn that this is an easy configuration tweak. 2: We get confirmation that an upgrade will solve our problems; we upgrade over the next week, problem is fixed. 3: We upgrade over the next week and find out that this is still an issue. We'll need to file a ticket against EZComments 2.0, and wait for a fix. 4: We get confirmation that an upgrade will not solve our problems, and we need a fix. We'll then have to decide if / how long we want to wait, or if we want to modify our moderation requirements.
I would like to avoid Situation #3 altogether. I'm not a fan of asking people to commit time, in an emergency fashion during a terribly busy week, to a solution that may not solve anything at all. IMO, we need to get answers that put us in Situations 1 or 2 (or even 4) by, I'd say, Wednesday (Paul, are we moving the FI meeting to back one day to Wednesday, as some of us are out Thursday?). If we do not have answers, I suggest we make some decisions on Wednesday.
I'll send that email today. I think we should meet on Wednesday since as Robyn notes some of us (herself, me) will be out or traveling on Thursday to Southeast LinuxFest.
Decision options include:
- How long will upgrade realistically take - including testing, etc.?
(This is more of a need an answer than decision, but..)
- Assess whether we want to rethink moderation - we could temporarily
not have moderation, and use spam filters, etc. Or, moderate -everything-. If we're willing to make accommodations here, we could upgrade and then hope it works, if not, plan M (modify moderation). Basically - is this a blocker?
We can always leave comments off for now. I don't consider this a blocker.
- Moving out deadline to accompany possibility that we will need a
fix, that upgrades will not be smooth, and give the lot of us on travel a few days of breathing room.
We have the same problem the week after this deadline -- several of us are going to be gone for the Red Hat Summit in Boston. We set up a milestone so that we could accurately judge how much effort our team was able to devote to Insight. If we don't make this simple milestone, I think we should use that information to inform our next move.
- Put FI on hold and go back to the drawing board.
We need to realize that some of the things we're dealing with right now -- maintaining the platform and modules, testing functionality -- are going to be the same needs regardless of our choice of platform.
In the meantime, I will be keeping my fingers crossed that this is a configuration error or something that can be confirmed as working in EZComments 2.0. :D I'd also add that some experienced eyeballs looking at the existing configuration settings would be welcomed, to make sure I'm not insane (this has been known to happen... pretty much daily....)
It doesn't seem to be a config error, there have been substantial code changes upstream that we need to package and test. I'll put some more time into this today.
On 8 June 2010 18:25, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
We can check using 'rpm -V zikula'. I found that other than our /etc/zikula/config.php file (expected differences), there's a change that's been made directly on /usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php.
I want to remind our Zikula friends that making these changes directly on the system is *discouraged* since we use packaged software from EPEL to deploy Zikula. This may be a patch that was tested and simply not removed. If that kind of change is not documented, however, it raises the risk of regressions when we upgrade.
Yes, this change is in 1.2.3. I worked on the bug you were experiencing (symbolic links to zikula install meant ZLanguage was unable to locate the locale files). This was fix upstream and patched into your local install. We release Zikula 1.2.3 around 5-6 weeks ago with this change.
We need to realize that some of the things we're dealing with right
now -- maintaining the platform and modules, testing functionality -- are going to be the same needs regardless of our choice of platform.
I'd also like to point out that for reasons I am not quite sure of, FI has taken months and months when it should have taken just a few days - people regularly deploy vastly complex Zikula sites in a matter of days. Future upgrades will be quite painless I can assure you, but I would really like to do assist in the packaging process. I think it would be far better (broken record again), if we put all the RPM building on our CI server, then a large portion of the packaging work would be done. All that would remain is testing and tweaking. Since tweaks would be made to the build XML it means future packaging would be even more painless.
Regards,
Drak
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 07:02:56PM +0545, Drak wrote:
On 8 June 2010 18:25, Paul W. Frields <[1]stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
We can check using 'rpm -V zikula'. I found that other than our /etc/zikula/config.php file (expected differences), there's a change that's been made directly on /usr/share/zikula/includes/ZLanguage.php. I want to remind our Zikula friends that making these changes directly on the system is *discouraged* since we use packaged software from EPEL to deploy Zikula. This may be a patch that was tested and simply not removed. If that kind of change is not documented, however, it raises the risk of regressions when we upgrade.
Yes, this change is in 1.2.3. I worked on the bug you were experiencing (symbolic links to zikula install meant ZLanguage was unable to locate the locale files). This was fix upstream and patched into your local install. We release Zikula 1.2.3 around 5-6 weeks ago with this change.
Excellent. So we don't need to record this patch and can move on. Zikula 1.2.3 packages were sent to the testing repository for EL-5, so I'll grab one and install it to pt6 later today, along with fixing the EZComments package.
We need to realize that some of the things we're dealing with right now -- maintaining the platform and modules, testing functionality -- are going to be the same needs regardless of our choice of platform.
I'd also like to point out that for reasons I am not quite sure of, FI has taken months and months when it should have taken just a few days - people regularly deploy vastly complex Zikula sites in a matter of days.
Partly this is because many of the people who were working on this project in the Fedora side are not experienced CMS administrators, nor PHP developers. And our requirements to have our customizations and changes be reproducible through packaging (RPM) and systems management (puppet) requires an additional set of skills as well. Add to that the fact that almost all the people working on the project are volunteers (and the remaining ones, like myself, are short on available time) and you have a recipe for a long process! :-)
Future upgrades will be quite painless I can assure you, but I would really like to do assist in the packaging process. I think it would be far better (broken record again), if we put all the RPM building on our CI server, then a large portion of the packaging work would be done. All that would remain is testing and tweaking. Since tweaks would be made to the build XML it means future packaging would be even more painless. Regards, Drak
This is a good idea. We would want to think about how to have that build process properly complement the requirements of our Infrastructure team for providing short-term package upgrades in their special "infrastructure" yum repository, and the requirements that David Nalley and other zikula RPM maintainers have for keeping things synchronized in Fedora's overall repositories. It should be pretty easy for us to import a specfile and tarball from Zikula and submit official builds through koji + bodhi.
logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org