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? -- Brane
