Support for recent Fedoras

[voxik]

Looking for listen gem [1], there are displayed F15-F18 + Rawhide, but the currently supported Fedoras, i.e. F19/F20 are missing.

[1] http://www.isitfedoraruby.com/rubygems/listen

[zuhao]

I've revamped the code base (including the import mechanisms) on rails4 branch. However, openshift currently still does not support Ruby2/Rails4, so I didn't have a chance to deploy the new site.

I'm thinking of moving it to another VPS, any suggestions? DigitalOcean maybe?

[voxik]

1. There is going to be Ruby 2.0 and Rails 4.0 software collection, so OpenShift should be able to provide the cartridge. May be worth of asking
2. If you are thinking about moving to another VPS, then I would suggest Fedora infrastructure. Actually, not sure if you are in contact with @axilleas, but he is probably going to apply for this years GSoC and this might be one of tasks for him.

[axilleas]

Hi, I've been following @zuhao's rails4 branch and indeed it addresses the problems of this issue :)

As for openshift not yet supporting ruby2/rails4, this is something requested by a lot of people and I know it's in the roadmap, we just don't know ETA. While digital ocean may be tempting, it would be cool to have this site hosted in Fedora infra. But all these are solutions that would take some time I guess, so we should come up with a temporary solution.

And true, I have in mind quite a few features to add and will submit a proposal to gsoc as well. Nevertheless, I plan to work on these features whether or not getting picked.

[voxik]

Just FYI, RHSCL 1.1 Beta was released yesterday, which is hopefully one less reasons why newer Ruby/Rails should not by supported by OpenShift.

http://developerblog.redhat.com/2014/03/20/rhscl-1-1-beta-available-apache-mongodb/

[movitto]

Just my 2cents, personally would prefer to leave it on openshift if Rails 4 will land soon & it'll work for us, alot of @nicolassatragno's GCI work was to integrate it there and it supports some nice features like auto-deployment when we push to the 'stable' branch.

If that doesn't work and fedora-intra is a viable option then that would also make sense, the more we stay integrated w/ the communities we are trying to serve / grow, the better.

Ultimately I'd be fine w/ whatever provided it serves our needs but would be leery about relying on too many 3rd party services (even if free) as often they introduce more dependencies / additional work.

[movitto]

Another thought. Not sure if the situation has changed, but perhaps if this is blocked on a host which doesn't have the required environment, different git branches could be wired up to different providers.

For example openshift could still be tied w/ 'stable' but in the meantime until that is ready, another 'alt' or similar branch could be setup to interface w/ fedora-infra or another vps / cloud provider.

Would entail more work, but once setup it should be relatively easy to switch providers by just pointing the domain at a different host and pushing to the corresponding branch (famous last words right ;-) ).

Take care, -Mo

[axilleas]

Isn't there a way to install rvm on openshift? Then from that point you could in theory install any version you'd like.

[movitto]

@axilleas openshift is offers more of a "Platform as a Service" (PaaS) approach vs something like openstack or ec2 which are "Infrastructure as a Service" (IaaS) clouds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing#Service_models

Openshift deploys our environment depending on our Gemfile + config. The specifics regarding the ruby environment are managed for us.

[axilleas]

Yeah thanks I know :) I was just thinking if we could bypass this problem until ruby2/rails4 is supported by Openshift.