[Imc-web] Re: Imc-web digest, Vol 1 #187 - 1 msg

[Sascha Meinrath]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Clint Popetz wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 02:04:30PM -0600, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Clint Popetz wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 01:09:18PM -0600, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> > > > hi all,
> > > >
> > > > over the past month or so i've been slowing changing the front page,
> > > > cleaning up redundancies, etc.  the php code changes are all
> > > > documented/commented.
> > >
> > > That would have been a good thing to communicate, since I was in the
> > > process of transitioning the site to the newest version of dada, which
> > > primarily involves diffing/patching our local changes.
> > >
> > > So I assume you have a set of diffs, in patch format, to give me?
> >
> > nope.  mainly i've been doing things just to learn php a bit better and
> > for my own edification.  what's the timeline on the upgrade -- i can just
> > make the changes again once the new version is up and running.
>
> The newest dada is substantially different than what we are using, so
> your diffs likely won't apply post-upgrade without a lot of work.  The
> entire site is done with stylesheets in the new dada.
>
> Here's where I am on the upgrade.  Everytime I attempt it, I put about
> 10 hours of work in, only to hit some roadblock.  The upgrade scripts
> take over 24 hours to run in order to make the database changes (mysql
> is dumb about ALTER TABLE statements).  So I typically clone the site,
> start the upgrade, hit a snafu related to trying to propogate our code
> changes to the new version, then the database is too out-of-date (i.e.
> the main site has articles that aren't in the clone) and I have to
> repeat.  This is complicated by the fact that we are three versions
> behind in the upgrade stream.  I've probably burned 40 hours over the
> past several months attempting this process.
>
> Here's what I would _love_ to do:
>
> (a) Ignore our dada changes.  They are out of date, and mostly
> cosmetic.

i think that this is well worth it -- dump the changes (we can always redo
them if we feel the need).

> (b) Install the new dada, and point the main site at it, but _without_
> all but the (say) 100 latest articles/features.
>
> (c) Move the backlog of articles to the new database over the
> subsequent days after the bugs in the site are worked out.
>
> (d) Hand over dada-ucimc ownership to Dan and you all.
>
> This means that for a few days, articles older than the last 100
> wouldn't be reachable.  I think that's not too much to swallow.  By
> doing it this way, I can reasonably get the new site up in one 4 hour
> session, which is about all my brain is good for in front of a
> computer these days.
>
> Thoughts?

i think this is an excellent plan -- we'll just want to put up a quick
razorwire letting folks know about the site upgrade and that older article
will be reachable once the process is completed.  mainly, can we ensure
that the old URLs for articles will still work once everything is
finished?  just curious, but i support this plan of action.

--sascha