Arctos: post-postgres issue priority

[dustymc]

We have a huge backlog of issues and assuming the next couple days will work like I hope, I'd like some help prioritizing them. I don't think the github tags are completely sufficient for this task, although they provide a very good place to start. I've started a spreadsheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fOUJsSqmKwA6POZp1EB27TuJfYuD7tjKBa1lqXCnTFo/edit#gid=0. Help please!

[Jegelewicz]

What you have in the google doc seems like important stuff and I am good with all of it getting done before other things. I am going to work hard on code table stuff (along with migrating the rest of NMMNH Paleo and Geology) as soon as SPNHC is done, but I will drop things to help get Locality attributes sorted out because that table needs to get pared down ASAP. So let me know if you need help with that in particular.

We need to have a lot of discussion about geography, taxonomy, and parts before we jump into any changes. Not sure how to prioritize among those, but I think it should be on the committees to help.

Sorry I can't be of immediate assistance - I'll try to keep up, but the next week I have dedicated to getting a decent presentation prepared for SPNHC.

[DerekSikes]

Looks good. The only one I'm hesitant about is losing the portals. I'm not
yet clear on what will replace them and what will be lost etc.

-D

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 4:37 PM dustymc [e-mail] wrote:

We have a huge backlog of issues and assuming the next couple days will
work like I hope, I'd like some help prioritizing them. I don't think the
github tags are completely sufficient for this task, although they provide
a very good place to start. I've started a spreadsheet at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fOUJsSqmKwA6POZp1EB27TuJfYuD7tjKBa1lqXCnTFo/edit#gid=0.
Help please!

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2706, or unsubscribe
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACFNUMZFX7NGSILXZGTBNL3RT37S7ANCNFSM4NNTD2AQ
.

--

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Derek S. Sikes, Curator of Insects
Professor of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
1962 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99775-6960

[email protected]

phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

University of Alaska Museum - search 400,276 digitized arthropod records
http://arctos.database.museum/uam_ento_all
http://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/ento/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Interested in Alaskan Entomology? Join the Alaska Entomological
Society and / or sign up for the email listserv "Alaska Entomological
Network" at
http://www.akentsoc.org/contact_us

[dustymc]

@DerekSikes see https://github.com/ArctosDB/arctos/issues/2683

[dustymc]

Added some mostly-administrative stuff to the spreadsheet and resorted

[dustymc]

re-added portals, added more stuff

[dustymc]

TACC does not currently have the resources to support a PG12 test environment, which makes me hesitant to tackle schema-partitioning. Skipping that would mean we continue to have large "everything" backups. Those haven't caused problems and https://github.com/ArctosDB/internal/issues/57 remains unresolved.

Should we skip to locality attributes? Are we stable enough to weather the month-or-so of not being able to easily make changes to production? If not then I need a resort of the spreadsheet.

[Jegelewicz]

TACC does not currently have the resources to support a PG12 test environment

I feel like I need a refresher on where we are because I thought getting a working test environment was the entire purpose of moving to PG.

I also need to better understand how working with locality attributes affects

Are we stable enough to weather the month-or-so of not being able to easily make changes to production?

We have an issues meeting this week, and I'd like to actually work through some issues instead of hijacking the meeting like we did last month with meta-issues. If I am the only person behind on this stuff, then direction should come from someone who knows the situation, if I am not the only confused person, maybe a quick AWG officers call would help create better direction?

[dustymc]

I have a (mostly) working test environment, but it's older and shared. It isn't capable of supporting some bleeding-edge functionality that I'm using, nor providing some of the access I need to implement high-level stuff. I think we'd need to throw some $$ at them for a shiny and new one - hopefully that's in the pipeline.

understand how working with locality attributes affects

I'm going to have to tear a BUNCH of stuff - everything that touches locality - down and build it back up to talk to the new model. I essentially won't have a test environment while that's ongoing - if something needs patched in production it'll have to be patched while in production, which will probably melt something else, and then patched back into test, which will very likely all be different by then. Something that takes 10 minutes now could very easily take a few days (and provide a really nice crack for bugs to slip through) during that process.

[Jegelewicz]

How much $$ are we talking about? Does this test environment have to be at TACC? Could UNM or UC Berkeley provide it for you?

[dustymc]

Do you have access to Arctos Working Group Officers? Looks like that was copied, I can forward if not.

I don't think it matters where the DB lives, as long as the machine and network are capable of supporting the traffic/load.

[dustymc]

This has served its purpose, closing.