Tim Donohue [2:00 PM]
@here: It's DSpace DevMtg time. Our agenda for today is at: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/DevMtg+2018-11-07
Let's do a quick roll call to see who is able to join the meeting today
Mark Wood [2:01 PM]
Terry Brady [2:01 PM]
James Creel [2:01 PM]
Totally would have missed this were it not for the "here" callout. Cursed Daylight Saving Time.
Tim Donohue [2:02 PM]
Hi all. Yes, daylight savings ending means this meeting is an hour earlier (for anyone leaving DST)
Mark Wood [2:02 PM]
Duraspace has a public Google Calendar with meetings on it, if that's useful.
Tim Donohue [2:03 PM]
Yep, the DuraSpace public events calendar is listed here: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/Developer+Meetings (Look at the bullet *under* the bolded one)
In any case, let's go ahead and get started today
In the "what's going on in other meetings front"....there was an Entities meeting yesterday. It's video & notes are at: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/2018-11-06+DSpace+7+Entities+WG+Meeting
Currently, the team is working on reviewing & providing feedback on the prototype code. If anyone else would like to chip in, this is being done in GitHub (in two large PRs). We always could use more "eyes" and reviewers
The plan is to merge the early code into a `configurable_entities` shared branch...clean it up, finalize & then submit a final PR to `master` (for both the UI and REST API)
So, keep an eye out for much more in coming weeks/month
The DSpace 7 team has their next meeting tomorrow at 15UTC (10am EST).
I'll also note, there was a DSpace Leadership Meeting today. We talked quite a bit on whether to release anything (e.g. an "early preview") in 2018 regarding DSpace 7. The reality is that we don't have all features done, so releasing a preview release would mean releasing something not "feature complete"
That group is less and less excited about a non-"feature complete" release...so, it's unlikely at this time that we'll have anything in 2018 (other than updated demo sites, of course). But, a subgroup is meeting to discuss DSpace 7 release plans/scheduling in more detail next week.
So, that's just a brief update there...not anything else official to note at this time.
I think that's it for my giant wall of text/updates. Will pause briefly for any questions/comments though
Mark Wood [2:11 PM]
I think I agree: if it's not complete, we don't want people to remember it as if it is (which *will* happen).
Tim Donohue [2:12 PM]
Oh, and by the way, Leadership Group meeting notes are now all public. They've already been posted here: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/2018-11-07+DSpace+Leadership+Group+Meeting
So, feel free to give those a read, if you want.
Mark Wood [2:12 PM]
Thanks for keeping us updated.
Tim Donohue [2:13 PM]
On the DSpace 6.4 side of things.. Again, while I'm sure we'll eventually have a 6.4, I'm also currently assuming it's not happening until after 7.0 (unless something changes/becomes really high priority). So, no real updates there.
Terry Brady [2:14 PM]
I presumed our push on the stats issue meant that there might be a need for a 6.4 release
Do we have any other significant features waiting for a release?
Tim Donohue [2:15 PM]
@terrywbrady: I'm glad we pushed that, but to be honest, I'm not going to have mindshare for a 6.4 anytime soon, even though I think that's important once 6.4 comes around
Mark Wood [2:16 PM]
There is a nasty knot of interdependent dependency upgrades and linked fixes that is pulling e.g. the statistics schema fixes forward.
Tim Donohue [2:16 PM]
We do have a variety of PRs waiting for reviews/testing and flagged as "possible for 6.4". But, I'm fully concentrated on 7.0 and haven't had time to even really look or review them
PRs current flagged as possible for 6.4: https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace/milestone/27 (There likely are even more out there too)
At this moment, none of these PRs seem so "high priority" as to pull me from 7.0. If one did rise to that level, I'd have to talk to Steering/Leadership about how we'd want to handle it. Currently, they've made it clear that 7.0 is the highest priority
Terry Brady [2:18 PM]
That list is helpful to see. If something comes up, this will be a good reference point.
Mark Wood [2:18 PM]
That doesn't meant that interested others can't give some cycles to these.
Terry Brady [2:19 PM]
Btw, I am going to start work on an upgrade of our repo to 6x. I paused it a couple times in the past due to 6x bugs. I think we will have better luck this time.
Tim Donohue [2:19 PM]
Yep. And, I'm continuing to tag all PRs that come in....so, that list is being added to / enhanced. I just haven't had time to really look at these PRs
And, I agree with @mwood. If anyone *here* is affected by these PRs, testing/reviews right now are more than welcome. No need to wait until later, especially since some of these might also be worth porting to 7.x (in full or part)
Any other questions/comments on 6.x? Essentially, please feel free to review/test PRs (knowing that that effort will bear fruit in the future). But, also be aware that 6.4 may not be out until sometime in first half of 2019
Ok, moving along then to topic #3... helping to update dependencies for 7.0
There's 3 PRs listed here that give major updates to some key dependencies. I'd really like to get the first two in soon (so they can be further tested as we continue development)
Apache Commons Config upgrade (already at +1 votes): https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace/pull/2244
Log4j v2 upgrade (also at +1 votes): https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace/pull/2241
The latter is of the most importance (as log4j v1 is EOL & new dependencies don't even necessary work well with it).
But the former also keeps us "up to date", and helps our Spring integration
Is there anyone here who could help @mwood and I move these two upgrades along? We basically need a second review on each
Mark Wood [2:27 PM]
Log4j v2 has some nice things for developers: (1) parameterized message texts like SLF4J; (2) pass a lambda to provide parameter value, *better than* SLF4j; (3) 0-argument getLogger() figures out the category without help.
Terry Brady [2:27 PM]
I put these in my review queue
Tim Donohue [2:28 PM]
I'll also note that our Solr upgrade (the third upgrade in this list) is waiting on log4j v2. New Solr doesn't seem to "like" log4j v1 (which makes sense, as it's been EOL for some time).
So, if you want us to also get off the EOL version of Solr, then we first must get off the EOL version of log4j :wink:
Terry Brady [2:29 PM]
I added that one too
Mark Wood [2:29 PM]
Note: that PR only upgrades the Solr *client*. We still need to move to a recent server.
Tim Donohue [2:29 PM]
@terrywbrady: thanks. Mark & I have reviewed each other's PRs. So, hopefully it'll be easy/quick to give a second +1 on each
Yes, the Solr PR in question currently only upgrades the client (i.e. step #1): https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace/pull/2058
It will need to be followed by a complimentary PR to also upgrade the Solr server. But, we're trying to take this in two steps to avoid a *massive* PR
Andrea Bollini [2:31 PM]
I recommend to keep SOLR client & server aligned. Update the server side could be not trivial, so before to merge the client we should be sure to be able to update also the server side
one thing to note for instance is that recent solr is only provided as standalone service (jetty embedded)
Tim Donohue [2:32 PM]
@bollini: They will be aligned before 7.x. The Server upgrade though is more complex as we need to provide scripts to upgrade existing data, etc.
Mark Wood [2:32 PM]
It shouldn't be that hard. We install absolutely stock Solr plus two tiny classes that affect nothing in it.
IIRC one of those classes is gone now, and the other is a mere convenience.
Tim Donohue [2:33 PM]
And, yes, the Solr server is now installed standalone. We will no longer be able to "bundle" Solr within DSpace. That concept no longer is recommended for Solr (edited)
But, we *have* to get off of an EOL version of Solr. There's no other path forward here, especially since we cannot even resolve security issues being reported on Solr (as we're on an unsupported version). So, the reality here is that we are simply moving DSpace in the "required" direction to be compatible with modern Solr
Mark Wood [2:35 PM]
To get the server side ready, I will pitch in where I can.
Tim Donohue [2:36 PM]
In any case, the earlier/quicker we can merge the log4j v2 upgrade, the quicker we can upgrade Solr. The latest Solr really isn't working well (dependency conflicts/mismatches all over) with log4j v1.
Andrea Bollini [2:36 PM]
ok, thanks to clarify. It will be nice to move to a recent solr version
Terry Brady [2:37 PM]
Once the server is separated out, we will need to update our docker stuff to reflect the additional service.
Mark Wood [2:38 PM]
Good point. If there is a ticket for the server side, it would be good to note that there.
Tim Donohue [2:38 PM]
@terrywbrady: yes, makes sense. We'll also need to update our DSpace Installation process anyhow (as Solr will be a dependency to install separate). But, that's a good point
Ok, so I don't have anything else to note here. We could just really use more eyes on the open PRs, as I think all of these are important for DSpace 7. The quicker we merge them, the better. That way I also get these off my plate (as I'm trying to ensure DSpace 7 doesn't get released with *any* EOL dependencies or known security vulnerabilities in dependencies)
Are there any other important dependency or backend updates we want to talk about for DSpace 7? (Obviously keeping in mind work on REST API and Angular will be talked about in tomorrow's mtg)
Ok, not hearing any
Next on the agenda was to get some final approval for Solr Statistics Schema update PR here: https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace/pull/1810
And, actually that's already at +2 :slightly_smiling_face:
So, I suspect this can just be merged... The update script code looks good to me. And, I know @mwood and @terrywbrady have been testing it on live data
Terry Brady [2:45 PM]
And a 6x port is ready to go: https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace/pull/2256
I suppose the title of both should be updated to remove the schema change reference
Tim Donohue [2:46 PM]
@terrywbrady: I'm assuming the two PRs have been kept "in sync"? If so, we likely can just do a quick sanity check of the 6.x port, once the `master` version is merged
Also, as I noted in the 1810 PR, we will need to create some documentation here for 6.4 and 7.0
Terry Brady [2:47 PM]
Yes. The 6x was created after the latest change for 7x.
I will create documentation after the merge is done.
Tim Donohue [2:49 PM]
Sounds good. Assuming no objections, I can go ahead and merge #1810, and then do a "sanity check" comparison of #2256 (and merge it, assuming everything looks the same). I can do that after this meeting
We'll keep the JIRA ticket open until the docs are done
Is there anything else to discuss on this topic?
not hearing anything...moving along
Ok, so we have <10mins left. The last topic on our agenda is the ongoing brainstorms/ideas that we've just been carrying over from meeting to meeting (in case of updates)
Rather than going through all these, in the essence of time, are there any updates to add? Anything requiring more eyes/reviews?
Terry Brady [2:52 PM]
what is up with your contributor report
Mark Wood [2:52 PM]
Nothing to add.
Tim Donohue [2:53 PM]
@terrywbrady: I've had zero time to even move it forward to be honest. I'm swamped right now...and Steering/Leadership is swamped with DSpace 7 decisions. So, while I'd like to see it "official", I'm not sure when it'll happen
It still "exists", but I also haven't found time to update it with Oct data yet: https://tdonohue.github.io/top-contributors/
DSpace’s Top GitHub Contributors
Ranking DSpace GitHub contributors, since 2018
Terry Brady [2:54 PM]
Since you have a solution, it is a shame that it requires approval to use. I think it is a nice way to recognize contributions from folks.
It could be a meaningful form of recognition for new contributors to the project.
Tim Donohue [2:55 PM]
It doesn't really *require* approval, but I'd rather it get some sort of approval/look prior to moving it under the "DSpace" name.
The only reason I want that...is that Fedora developers specifically didn't like the idea. I don't know all the ins & outs of "why". But, I'd hate to release it and have folks say: "why are we doing this?"
Terry Brady [2:56 PM]
For what my approval is worth... I think it is a nice solution. :slightly_smiling_face:
Tim Donohue [2:56 PM]
There *is* an upcoming Outreach subgroup of Leadership & Steering (forming now) that I plan to bring this to. However, they haven't formed yet
Terry Brady [2:57 PM]
That sounds like a good audience.
Tim Donohue [2:57 PM]
In the meantime, it exists & it's public. So, I'll try to keep it up to date (will find a few minutes to get the Oct stats in soon): https://tdonohue.github.io/top-contributors/
Terry Brady [2:58 PM]
I need to join another meeting. Have a good week!
Mark Wood [2:59 PM]
Should dspace-api enable deletion of copy request records? Was this omission intentional? IIRC @bollini was connected with this code. Do you recall?
Tim Donohue [2:59 PM]
Bye. Ok, as we only have a few minutes here, I'm assuming we likely don't have time for any other topics. But is there anything to add to next week's agenda?
@mwood: i don't think that omission was intentional. So, I'm in favor of adding it in (especially since it could be personal info that requires deletion per GDPR or country-specific regulations)
As we're at the top of the hour, and discussion has slowed, I say we close out the meeting. If there are topics to add for next week, pass them my way and I'll get them on our agenda.
Thanks all & have a good rest of the week
Mark Wood [3:02 PM]