On 03/01/2016 12:44 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:16:22PM -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> So, I have a bigger concern to make sure we consider: Lots of things
>> currently reference user id such as links for sponsors and elsewhere
>> including CiviCRM. There are some reasons to dislike the way the
>> arbitrary id numbers are used compared to other options, but it may
>> just be the most sensible.
>> So, as we rebuild via a dev reimplemention, I want us to either use
>> the *same* user list (i.e. migrate it over, question being how to
>> deal with sync issues going forward)
> I believe I addressed this. Part of the reason we are keeping the old
> site around is because all the data relating to users is, in fact,
> valuable. When the time comes, it will be migrated or incorporated
>> ... make it clear that the dev thing is just testing and may get
>> periodically wiped and that the main site is still the real one for
> This is why the plan is to operate the new site under
>> So, I imagine we end up with a nice working site that has a clean
>> database with no users or anything and only the core functions we
>> need or at least things separated into subsites adequately etc. We
>> make all the cleanest decisions we can, like the table being "users"
>> instead of "user" for example, maybe the newer environment
>> variables, certainly the best newest auth stuff and no Persona
>> anything… and then once we're comfortable with that, we do a
>> migration where we copy over the users from the main site keeping
>> the old database for reference but migrating only the columns that
>> still apply to the new updated site.
>> The significant thing here is keeping the users and their id
>> numbers. I know there's a way to migrate the auth hash stuff so that
>> we move to the stronger newer hashing… Anyway, we don't need to
>> handle every aspect of this right away, just need the plan to be
> Don't worry about these things right now.
Okay sounds good. The only reason I felt concerned was because I'm
*okay* with losing some data such as precise wiki version history (not
that I *want* to lose it, but I don't want preservation to get in the
way of more important progress). So, I know that the overall data is
understood as valuable, I just wanted to make it clear that the
particular user ids actually matter, whereas the id of the snowdrift
project, for example, can change because we refer to it by "snowdrift"
and never by it's database id. So the user id specifically seemed a
non-obvious thing to point out as a concern.
I'll not worry about this further. I definitely support the proposed
direction and would be happy to see it push forward ASAP.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Discuss mailing list