Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Notes for 12Feb tools call

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:51 AM Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:

> # IETF Website #
>
> Torchbox has completed their last major deliverable (upgrading the
> website to a more modern version of wagtail). There are a small number
> of tickets related to documentation and requests for information we
> should have before shifting the code into our own public code
> repository. Note that the wagtail project continues to issue new
> releases. The project with torchbox brought us to wagtail 2.2.2. The
> current release now is 2.4.
>
> However, we are blocked on deploying this latest deliverable. The way we
> are serving python applications via Apache right now (mod_wsgi) only
> allows the use of one version of python. Many of our applications are on
> Python 2.7 right now. This includes the datatracker and the mailarchive.
> Wagtail, on the other hand, dropped support for python 2.7 at Wagtail
> 2.0. Waiting until we have all exisiting deployed applications ported to
> python 3 to deploy the deliverable from Torchbox is exceedingly
> suboptimal. It will delay the current plan for the tools-team to take
> over maintenance of the website code and start adding features the
> secretariat has asked for. We've started conversations about what other
> options we have besides waiting for everything to be ported to python 3.
>

Why does the version of datatracker impact the version of Wagtail we run?
They seem to be on different hosts, so can't they run different versions of
Python?

> # Yangcatalog #
>
> We've shifted the plan for short-term deployment and development to
> occur using the existing externally hosted server.
>

Can you provide some more background for this? Why can't this be moved to
an IETF server (or IETF-managed cloud)

-Ekr

The meeting application improvement SoW is essentially ready to issue.
>
> I have text from Ekr to work into the RPC security code review SoW. The
> RPC has asked that we hold off issuing that RFP until some changes
> related to the new format are better integrated into their repository so
> that the review focuses more on the code that will actually be used.
>
> The Inline-Errata SoW is still under review and has several unresolved
> comments. The lastest version is at
> <
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T-6eBrNPC7aIxOTChdIZE7fecbxUJ7kq-F6RhyCNUGI/edit>.
>
> One of the major observations in the comments is that this project is
> focusing on the existing (old-format) publication format, and is not
> targetting or taking advantage of the new format in any way. That's
> intentional. We need to have some run-time experience with the new
> format before we can sensibly ask a contractor to work on inlining
> errata into it. We plan to learn from this project, and apply what we
> learn into the new format with a future project.
>
> The next SoW to be developed is for IANA expert review tracking.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development
>