On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26.01.2015 22:03, John Chambers wrote: > > As some of you may know I have recently taken an interest in the > > infrastructure side of the project. > > The following have be highlighted to me as the main priorities at the > > moment: > > > > 1. Ensuring the demo servers are online. > > 2. Re-enabling source browsing > > 3. Upgrading i.a.o to version 0.8 from 0.4 > > 4. Dealing with spam tickets. > > 5. Dealing with robot users. > > 6. Setup multi product on i.a.o. > > > > I know there will be issues migrating tickets from a single to multi > > product setup so I am proposing to create a new installation of > bloodhound > > at version 0.8 that will have multiple products defined. Migrating the > wiki > > content but leave the majority of the tickets in the old instance. Which > > will still be available for reference. > > > > We can then start afresh in a multi product setup. The new instance will > > have all the relevant plugins to prevent spam / robot users etc. And will > > be easier to maintain and upgrade. > > > > Let me know what you think. > > Sounds like a plan. FWIW, it really shouldn't be too hard to migrate the > issues from an old, non-multi-product database to the new, multi-product > setup, while maintaining product-specific issue numbers. > Yeah, it would be more ideal if we could migrate over the issues as well. I don't think we have the exact steps documented anywhere, and perhaps it's so trivial that the steps don't need to be documented, but I'm not counting on it. I could spend some time this weekend testing locally with a copy of the database. Whichever way we go with i.a.o, it would be good for us to understand the steps required to migrate older installations to multiproduct, and document if needed, so any time spent wouldn't be wasted. > We can still get the old issue URLs to work by adding some smart rewrite > rules to the HTTPd configuration. > > -- Brane > >
