How are you planning to do the migration, as the Groups Migration API documentation suggests that it does take notice of the Date: field in the (RFC 822 formatted) messages?
G On 3 August 2015 at 15:40, Tim Donohue <tdono...@duraspace.org> wrote: > Hi Developers / Committers, > > As of yet, I've heard little feedback on the proposed mailing list > migration. So, I'm assuming no one else has major objections to any of > these options. > > Currently, I'm leaning towards just migrating all mailing lists + > archives into Google Groups, even though the dates of archived messages > will appear incorrectly (this is option #1 described below). We can > then add a note to the Google Group description letting everyone know > that earlier messages all appear under the same date. I have not yet > scheduled a start date for this process, but I'd hope to have it > completed by the end of August. I plan to migrate less active lists > first, and save our most active lists (dspace-tech especially) for > last. Obviously though, I'll let each list know prior to migrating that > list. > > Please do let me know though, if you have any thoughts (or prior Google > Groups migration experience to share). > > Thanks, > > Tim > > On 7/29/2015 2:27 PM, Tim Donohue wrote: > > Hi Developers, > > > > In case you haven't seen recent Developer Meeting notes, I wanted to > > update everyone here on recent working investing the migration of our > > DSpace mailing lists off of SourceForge (lists.sourceforge.net). As > > you may have heard, SourceForge had some major stability issues > > recently [1], plus there's been controversy around its practices [2], > > not to mention the fact that all our mailing lists have crashed twice > > this year already (Feb then last week). > > > > So, in some discussions on IRC, several of us feel it's about time to > > move entirely off SourceForge. This includes finding a new home for > > our mailing lists (including this one). > > > > Thus far, my concentration has been in looking to migrate us to Google > > Groups. While everyone has their favorites, I've personally found > > Google Groups easier to manage, and much easier to browse and search > > (than Mailman which SourceForge uses). Plus, many other open source > > projects in our space have jumped to Google Groups, including Fedora, > > Hydra, Islandora. DSpace also already uses Google Groups for the > > DSpace Community Advisory Team (DCAT) mailing list (and it's become > > the "de facto" standard within DuraSpace for new mailing lists, > > honestly). So, in a sense we'd be consolidating on GG. > > > > But, there is a big "gotcha" (hence this email discussion). > > > > In my testing, while I can migrate our SF mailing list archives to GG, > > Google Groups ignores the *original* message's "Date" header. This > > means that if we were to move our mailing list archives to Google > > Groups, all the old messages will "appear" as if they were posted on > > the migration date (i.e. while the message's date header may say 2004, > > Google Groups will show it as 2015). Only the *date* seems affected. > > From my testing, the archived messages, the authors, subjects and > > their discussion threads all migrate well (and in the proper order). > > But, the visible date ends up wrong. > > > > (If anyone else has experience with this, please do get in touch. At > > this point, I suspect it's just Google Groups ignores these old "Date" > > email headers in favor of the latest "Received" email header. But I > > honestly cannot find proof of others seeing the same behavior. > > Strangely, Fedora didn't see this behavior when they migrated back in > > 2013 from SF to GG. But, since I'm using the exact same process they > > used, I suspect this may be a recent change in GG behavior.) > > > > Because of this odd date issue, we are left with a bit of a conundrum. > > Do we... > > > > 1) Migrate to Google Groups, and just let the older messages all > > appear under Aug 2015 (or whatever the migration date ends up being). > > This makes the old archives browsable/searchable via GG, but the dates > > are not at all trustworthy / may cause confusion. > > > > 2) Migrate to Google Groups, but leave our archives behind / saved > > elsewhere. This would mean we'd be starting "fresh". The old SF > > archives could be saved as static files off dspace.org (so they would > > be searchable in Google). Plus, they'd still be searchable via > > archival sites like Nabble, GMane, The Mail Archive, etc. (and we tend > > to point users to those services to search our archives anyways, since > > SF archives are hard to search/browse). > > > > 3) Look into migrating our list elsewhere (not Google Groups). (Though > > as mentioned, GG seems to be the new "de facto" standard these days > > both within DuraSpace and with other open source repository platforms. > > I don't see that changing anytime soon, as they all seem happy with GG.) > > > > 4) Stay on SourceForge a bit longer for mailing lists ONLY. (Though as > > mentioned, our lists have crashed twice in the last 6 months. Not very > > confidence building.) > > > > Thoughts? Or anyone else have experience with migrating list archives > > into Google Groups with tips to share? > > > > - Tim > > > > > > [1] https://twitter.com/sfnet_ops (see posts from July 17 until today. > > As of today, all SF services are still not fully restored) > > [2] > > > http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/sourceforge-addresses-the-controversy-surrounding-ad-bundling/ > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Dspace-devel mailing list > Dspace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-devel >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Dspace-devel mailing list Dspace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-devel
