[GeoNode-devel] geonode-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 4

[Thomas Gertin]

This sounds great, I would like to volunteer to help with testing. 

I also think it is a good idea to create a video walk-through of a docker deployment once it is finished.

-Tom Gertin

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:23 AM, geonode-devel-request at lists.osgeo.org wrote:
> 
> Send geonode-devel mailing list submissions to
>    geonode-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geonode-devel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    geonode-devel-request at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    geonode-devel-owner at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of geonode-devel digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Docker Strategy Chat (Toni Schönbuchner)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 14:23:43 +0200
> From: Toni Schönbuchner <toni.schoenbuchner at csgis.de>
> To: geonode-devel <geonode-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [GeoNode-devel] Docker Strategy Chat
> Message-ID: <2CA6E88C-C81A-45F8-852D-37B161007F74 at csgis.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi Olivier,
> 
> thanks for sharing your plans. Your ideas read well thought out.
> What do you have in mind with:
> 
>> We'd need to find a good name for it - suggestions welcome.
> 
> A codename like  'GeoNode Pacific' ;)
> 
> Or a branch name to just distinguish from master branch?
> If so why not just stay close to yours ~ master-spc, or master-le (let´s encrypt).
> docker-next or docker+?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Toni
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> CSGIS
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> Kolonnadenstraße 1
> 04109 Leipzig
> -----------------------------------------------
> Mobil    +49/ (0) 176 6680 3198
> Tel        +49/ (0) 341 24 04 738
> Fax        +49/ (0) 341 24 04 73
> Web        http://csgis.de
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> Hinweis gemäß § 33 BDSG
> Daten der Verfahrensbeteiligten werden gespeichert. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für den 
> Adressaten bestimmt. Der Inhalt der E-Mail ist vertraulich. Falls Sie diese E-Mail versehentlich 
> erhalten haben, rufen Sie uns unter obiger Rufnummer umgehend an und löschen Sie diese Nachricht 
> von Ihrem Computer. Jegliche Art von Reproduktionen, Verbreitung, Vervielfältigung, Veränderung, 
> Verteilung und/oder Veröffentlichung dieser E-Mail ist verboten.
> 
>> Am 06.09.2018 um 12:22 schrieb geonode-devel-request at lists.osgeo.org:
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 11:49:31 +1000
>> From: Olivier Dalang <olivier.dalang at gmail.com <mailto:olivier.dalang at gmail.com>>
>> To: geonode-devel <geonode-devel at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:geonode-devel at lists.osgeo.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [GeoNode-devel] Docker Strategy Chat
>> Message-ID:
>>    <CAExk7p2tzJYbCPG6MahJ3XcqE37B8OXFy9HpexmLWkfa6m2d4g at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAExk7p2tzJYbCPG6MahJ3XcqE37B8OXFy9HpexmLWkfa6m2d4g at mail.gmail.com>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> Hi all !
>> 
>> Some time has passed since we last discussed deployment with Docker. I'm
>> still willing to work on officially supporting docker deployment for
>> Geonode.
>> 
>> To move forward on the docker deployment, I suggest a two phase strategy.
>> 
>> 1/ copy over the SPCgeonode repo to the geonode organization (more or less
>> as is) and document that deployment method as an official one l (but in
>> beta state). We'd need to find a good name for it - suggestions welcome.
>> 2/ work on making the SPCgeonode setup and the setup in the main repo
>> converge, with the end goal of removing the docker deployment repo
>> altogether and have everything in the main repo, using the same
>> docker-compose, with a docker-compose.deploy.yml that adds deployment
>> specific elements (https, backups)
>> 
>> 1/ could happen very soon (maybe even before next release), while 2/ would
>> take more time, as it requires to go carefully through both implementations
>> and take the best of both.
>> 
>> I think this would accommodate both the goal of having a ready deployment
>> method soon, and the final goal of having the deployment method use the
>> same docker images than dev, without being disruptive for users currently
>> relying on the docker images.
>> 
>> The reason why I think we must do it in 2 steps is that IMO, while good for
>> development, the current setup in the main repo still requires significant
>> work until it's usable as a base for deployment (docker images are too
>> heavy, split across many repos, images not properly versioned,
>> non-production ready elements such as static files being served by django,
>> no ci, etc.). That's not mentioning the additional steps needed for a
>> deployment meeting basic good practice requirements (https, backups...).
>> 
>> I would definitely be able to support the work on this as part of my
>> current activities. I also believe it meets a high demand from the
>> community (this is more or less my only serious contribution to Geonode, so
>> that I take my election in PSC a clear sign of that demand).
>> 
>> Francesco, would that 2 steps strategy be OK as you were keen to have the
>> spcgeonode setup reuse as much as possible existing docker setups ?
>> 
>> Let me know what you think. Let's discuss this, and if needed vote during
>> next PSC (though if we reach consensus before that it's even better).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Olivier
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geonode-devel/attachments/20180906/cdea0902/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geonode-devel mailing list
> geonode-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geonode-devel
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of geonode-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 4
> ********************************************