...
- Primary focus of f6 is swapping OCFL for Modeshape: by and large that is done. Getting from Fedora 3 to Fedora 6 is there as well; there is significant testing going on; NLM migrating approx. 3 million objects.
- Took about 7 days for NLM to migrate. Seemed reasonable to them, but this is the time to discover issues and focus on optimization
- Is their migration generalizable? Good to know where the variations lie, and what impact on migration time
- Currently there is no support for Fedora 4 or 5 migration support to 6. This is vital. We do not want to create another Fedora island; do not want a dead end for folks on fedora 4 and 5.
- No direct sense of timing, but we do know that we're not releasing fcrepo6 without this
- From a leadership perspective, the intent of 6 was "everybody moves to 6 equally"
- How much effort is 4 or 5 to 6?
- We can export right now to "something that makes sense". The idea is to do that, then as a subsequent task migrate that export into OCFL.
- We don't really know scale of fedora 4 and 5 repositories in the wild, don't know if there are scaling issues with existing migration tools
- No export→OCFL tooling exists right now.
- Anybody with fedora 4 or 5 data to migrate?
- JHU: Has fedora4, 300k-500k objects, ACLs, some large containers. Not a good use case for migrating to archival groups
- UNC probably has 1-3 million fcrepo5 objects before ready to migrate to Fedora 6. Interested in migrating to archival groups (as their fcrepo5 model is more or less an emulation of fcrepo3 patterns)
- Leaders make a point of clarity: we're not releasing 6 until all migration tools are ready. Make it clear that the absence 4→6 and 5→6 tools will be a blocker to a release if fcrepo6 is done, but migration tools aren't.
- Don't release fcrepo6 alpha until all migration tool is ready? if 4, 5 migration isn't ready, we haven't met the core objective of 6.
- Andrew: thinking migration tools are a requirement for beta, not alpha. Some ... there may be value in starting to get feedback on Fedora 6 functionality with an alpha ASAP, regardless of migration tools?
- Folks have been using 3→6 migration without us knowing.
- Don't think it's vital to decide right now on alpha? Discuss at leaders meeting?
- At the very least, 4→6, 5→6 migration tooling ought to be a higher priority than it has to date
- Need people with machines to run tests! Tests themselves are ready to go
- Is there anything we should be doing more broadly to encourage folks to test?
- Defer to product technology group to lead this thread?
- Start slating 4→6 migration work into sprints? Next sprint is coming up soon.
- Do we have any thoughts of Alpha timing? Thinking "some time this year"?
- How many sprints for migration tooling?
- Not clear how much developer effort is available Team is small but enthusiastic.
- Not prepared to make a time commitment.
- How many hours of development for migration tooling?
- Andrew thinks three sprints of 1-2 people focused on migration.
- Work is well-specified
- Feature tracking page should be refactored a bit to be more easily consumable. Just focus on top bullets for now, look for fields of green, red, blue.
...