Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Access to AIX machines to provide coverage #470

Closed
mhdawson opened this issue Aug 22, 2016 · 10 comments
Closed

Access to AIX machines to provide coverage #470

mhdawson opened this issue Aug 22, 2016 · 10 comments
Assignees

Comments

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member

mhdawson commented Aug 22, 2016

While I was away on vacation the firewall config for the AIX machines was dropped somehow and then AIX was removed from the CI runs.

We need more coverage to investigate issues on AIX. In this case it only took a few minutes to investigate and then the fix to the firewall config to get things going again.

I'd like to get @gibm access limited to the AIX machines (or possibly AIX and PPC machines)

He works at IBM. He meets some of the requirements for temporary access in: https://github.com/nodejs/build/blob/master/doc/process/special_access_to_build_resources.md based on this subset of the criteria:

  • Consequences to the individual in case of mis-bahaviour. For example, would they potentially lose their job if they were reported as mis-behaving to their employer ? Would being banned from involvement in the Node.js community negatively affect them personally in some other way
    • He works at IBM in the Node.js Runtime technologies group. Being banned would definitely have an impact
  • Are there collaborators who work with the individual and can vouch for them.
    • I'll vouch for him
  • Length and consistency of involvement with Node.js working groups and/or community.
    • This one is a little weaker as he is new to our team. So far he has contributed (opened,
      commented, etc on 42 issues since April 2016)

@nodejs/build can I get an approver ?

@mhdawson mhdawson self-assigned this Aug 22, 2016
@joaocgreis
Copy link
Member

Length and consistency of involvement with Node.js working groups and/or community.
This one is a little weaker

Not at all, @gibm has been helpful all around! Giving him access sounds good to me.

@gibfahn
Copy link
Member

gibfahn commented Aug 23, 2016

@joaocgreis Thanks! Just FYI, I merged my work/other Github accounts under @gibfahn, so I'm using that rather than @gibm.

@jbergstroem
Copy link
Member

Just a heads up: me/@joaocgreis figured out why machines sometimes 'fell out' of iptables. Fixed!

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

@joaocgreis can I take your response as the second required approver ? If so my default path would be to add his key to the AIX/PPC machines as that limits access to just the required set.

@nodejs/build FYI, if @joaocgreis acts as the second app rover I'll go ahead in the next few days unless I hear objections before then.

@joaocgreis
Copy link
Member

@mhdawson sure, I approve. (Sorry if I was not clear before)

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

mhdawson commented Sep 9, 2016

Ok, @gibfahn keys are on the AIX machines and I'll look at adding him to the PPC ones. Sounds like he is going to be onboarded as a collaborator. At that point I'll probably ask that we just get him access in the manner that we would give ongoing access to a collaborator instead.

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

Since Gibson is now a collaborator I'd like to propose we just give him access to the test keys so that he has access to the PPC, AIX and 390 machines. Will discuss in WG meting today.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Oct 11, 2016

Since Gibson is now a collaborator I'd like to propose we just give him access to the test keys so that he has access to the PPC, AIX and 390 machines. Will discuss in WG meting today.

SGTM

@jbergstroem
Copy link
Member

jbergstroem commented Oct 11, 2016

Suggesting we close this in favor of #514 (once landed)

@mhdawson
Copy link
Member Author

Agreed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants