Re: Working on proposal

[Gary Martin <ga...@physics.org>]

There is not really that much debate at the moment, is there!

I'll be trying to put some more time aside to work on the proposal a bit more. It may have been noted that there have been a few commits from John and myself that pushed things on a little bit. Thanks John!

I'm going to try to finish off the basic model work quickly and check that it copes well enough with some existing/generated bloodhound+trac or if there will need to be any tweaks or specific migration code.

I'm also going to organise a short bit of time off work where I'm going to try to dedicate some of it to Bloodhound work. This might deserve its own thread as I would like to encourage others to be chatting with me over that time. So, more on that shortly!

Cheers,
    Gary

On Tue, 4 May 2021, at 4:49 PM, John Chambers wrote:
> Thanks for this Gary.
> I agree with the fundamentals of the proposal as it makes sense to me to
> use the existing database model as a start for the new Bloodhound. I think
> it would be much easier to make changes to a fully formed database model
> than to design this from the ground up.
> 
> I will try to take part in this debate going forward.
> 
> Regards
> 
> John
> 
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 23:41, Gary Martin <ga...@physics.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Sorry it has been so long. I have been putting in some time to look at
> > various things around the Apache Bloodhound project to try to push things
> > along a bit.
> >
> > One of these things was to attempt to fix a problem with accessing the
> > issue tracker. I am not yet happy with this fix as, at least temporarily,
> > it leaves me as the only person with an account. This may not matter too
> > much if we are willing to go through re-registration (and, yes,
> > registration is still disabled at the moment so this may be fun to
> > organise) but as there may be a need for a further re-registration event
> > when we migrate to a Django based Bloodhound, I am reluctant to force this
> > upon people. Hopefully I can report on this further soon.
> >
> > Anyway, with that sorted temporarily, albeit just for me, I have been
> > using my access to begin putting some work into describing my current ideas
> > for Bloodhound at [1]  - it is currently very rough but I'm hoping that it
> > will evolve fairly quickly with input from others. I also didn't want to
> > put it in place fully formed as I would prefer that others would be able to
> > get their ideas into the proposal.
> >
> > One of the bigger changes from what I have suggested in the past is that
> > it may be more pragmatic to start from database models that are closer to
> > those that we already have and look to change them where we think this is
> > appropriate, supported by Django's migration mechanism.
> >
> > I have included a diagram that I have generated from a possible
> > translation of the current Bloodhound database to Django models which can
> > be found in the proposal (or see ref [2] below for a direct link to that
> > attachment.) I have not proved that I have got the model equivalent in
> > enough detail at this point but I am planning on getting these changes
> > prepared for our bloodhound-core git repo shortly.
> >
> > I'm looking forward to hearing opinions on any of this.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >     Gary
> >
> > [1]
> > https://live.bloodhound.apache.org/bloodhound/products/BHD/wiki/Proposals/BEP-0016
> > [2]
> > https://live.bloodhound.apache.org/bloodhound/products/BHD/attachment/wiki/Proposals/BEP-0016/bh_models.dot.png
> >
>