Versions Compared

Old Version 9

changes.mady.by.user Danny Bernstein

Saved on

compared with

New Version 10

changes.mady.by.user Ben Pennell

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  1. Announcements
  2. Sprint checking
    1. Round robin
      1. Ben Pennell
        1. Binary GET, POST done
        2. Binary PUT is in Review
        3. PATCH binary and Fixity checks might be the next steps
      2. Jon
        1. confirmed that FCREPO-3169 is fixed, currently have a PR in for FCREPO-3177 and will be working on FCREPO-3168, FCREPO-3026 and FCREPO-3122 and see how far I get by the end tomorrow
      3. Andrew
        1. 2020 Sprints - Fedora 6#2020SprintsFedora6-Migration-utils
        2. Migration utils this sprint is bug fixes and minor new features
        3. Doesn't know what to do with the .fcrepo directory stuff at the moment in the migration utils
        4. Q: is fedora 6 meant to be able to handle a ocfl repo that wasn't made for fcrepo6?
          1. Yes
        5. Can we start from OCFL copied from one fcrepo to another?
        6. What does rebuildability look like? On demand? Flag that has to be enabled? Command/User interaction?
      4. Peter Winckles
        1. Mostly local stuff
        2. Looked at bugs for resources not being closed in migration util
      5. Danny
        1. Done some refactoring in 3188
        2. PR for getting Archival groups working
    2. Rebuild on start would be a valuable next step for opening the door to revealing what happens next, over CRUD completeness. Danny may focus on this next.
    3. Check in with Peter E about containment and if support is needed.
  3. -
  4. Pairtrees:  
    1. Andrew Woods :  let's avoid creating  
      1. PUT to a/b/c  (where a does not exist :  should it 
        1. create a, b, and c as basic containers?
          1. would this be backwards compatible?
            1. No because it would change the LDP structure of the resources
        2. fail because a and b don't exist?
          1. this would be ideal 
        3. Succeed but create pairtrees
          1. should be avoided if we can
        4. Succeed, creating new resource at created URL, but not filling in missing parents as resources
          1. this would be the best scenario, makes the URIs semantics less important to functionality
          2. but introduces complications. :
            1. A number of parts of the code base make
            assu
            1. assumptions based on URI hierarchy.
            2. Situations where client creates a/b/c, and then creates a/b. Would fedora have to change containment of c from a to b? Or fail?
      2. Jared is willing to look at fcrepo4/5 to document existing behavior
      3. Danny concerned with user errors if semantics of uris don't matter anymore
      4. Andrew advocating for determining what degree of backwards compatibility is required, not just doing things because of what previous versions did.
        1. Danny will put together email to gather community feedback, might be helpful to create a document that users can comment on
  5. Build Fedora 6 docker container
    1. Thomas - Could we build a docker at the end of the CI?
    2. Existing docker work: Deployment Tooling
    3. Thomas interested in just a fedora 6 docker container, without the additional environment
    4. Since we are building with Travis, all we need is one or two steps in the pipeline to produce this
    5. Would push the fedora 6 docker container to dockerhub. Might need an organization for it
    6. Thomas will create a few tickets: 1) dockerhub org, 2) update travis with simple docker file

...