On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 10:27, Daniel Gruno <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/08/2020 01.05, sebb wrote: > > [snip] > > *Any* changes need to be tested, especially since bugs here can have > > permanent consequences. > > > > I am sort of stumped with regards to what needs to be tested here, and > what concerns you have about adopting the ES7.x standard layout. > > I think we can all agree that more testing is better, but we need some > semblance of an idea of what/how to test, or we'll be at this impasse > for a long while :) > > The change I am proposing (upgrading the archiver to support ES6/7) does > not alter the document IDs, it does not change the sources, and it's not > meant to be used with the old system at all, as that wouldn't work with > ES7 anyway. It's a very literal "instead of using database named A, we > use database named B" operation.
Yes, I understand the change you are proposing. However this requires code changes, and code changes need to be tested. If there is to be a hope of cleanly migrating a database from the old to the new, there needs to be consistency of Permalinks between the old and new software. Suppose the new software sometimes creates a different Permalink from the old software. It would no longer be possible to do a parallel run without introducing discrepancies. Likewise, if the old and new software behaves differently wrt Permalinks when importing existing mailboxes, there would be a problem. The other aspect that needs to be thoroughly tested is privacy. There have been several instances of inadvertent leaks in the past. Any change in the code needs to be analysed and tested for such issues. >
