Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Stanley [mailto:fungi at yuggoth.org]
> Sent: 08 January 2015 22:26
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [horizon] packaging problem production
> build question
> 
> On 2015-01-08 15:11:24 -0700 (-0700), David Lyle wrote:
> [...]
> > For those running CI environments, remote access will likely be
> > required for bower to work. Although, it seems something like
> > private-bower [1] could be utilized to leverage a local mirror where
> > access or network performance are issues.
> [...]
> 
> There's a very good chance we'll want to do something similar for the
> official OpenStack CI jobs as well. We already go to extreme lengths to
> pre-cache and locally mirror things which software would otherwise try
> to retrieve from random parts of the Internet during setup for tests. If
> your software retrieves files from 10 random places over the network,
> the chances of your job failing because of one of them being offline is
> multiplied by 10. As that number grows, so grows your lack of
> testability.

Local mirrors are also used to control the version of software included in a build, so that builds can be repeatable independently of changes to external sources.  Is this supported by bower?

> --
> Jeremy Stanley
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Thanks, 
Jon-Paul Sullivan ☺ Cloud Services - @hpcloud

Postal Address: Hewlett-Packard Galway Limited, Ballybrit Business Park, Galway.
Registered Office: Hewlett-Packard Galway Limited, 63-74 Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2. 
Registered Number: 361933
 
The contents of this message and any attachments to it are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message in error you should delete it from your system immediately and advise the sender.

To any recipient of this message within HP, unless otherwise stated, you should consider this message and attachments as "HP CONFIDENTIAL".