Page Comparison

• Reflect on the 2.1.0 Release Process

How did it go - what could we do differently next time?

Refactoring falls into a few camps -

Backward Compatibility Legend:

BC - either no backward compatibility concerns or easy to make backward compatible
BC? - requires analysis to determine backward compatibility impact
BC - either difficult to make backward compatible or requires significant effort to achieve backward compatibility

A Few Key Proposed Refactors

• BC - 2.1.0 created lightweight versions of admin set and collection factories. A few tests were updated. Need to refactor remaining test that use Admin sets and collections to use lightweight factories and then remove heavy factories. (Issue #2940)
• BC - Works could also benefit from a lightweight refactoring.
• BC? - Drying up of code in Collection Views. (Issue #1677)
  
• BC? - Performance improvements around indexing (Issue #1826)
• BC - Make new Edit Collection UI look like Work UI. (Issue #3107)
• BC - Cleanup of participants organization - recorded in permission tempates or ACLs in Fedora. Ideally one place to check that. Should be ACLs. Refactor to get depositor info int ACL. (Issue #2474)
• Additional Potential Refactors: open issues in Hyrax - 21 marked as Refactoring

Some weigh in by responsible parties on priorities. See if there's another category that should be considered.

• Hyrax Working Group
• Analytics
• Bulk
• Accessibility

• How do we want to position Hyrax to meet a variety of repository certification needs?
• FAIR Repositories - http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/13427
• Next Generation Repositories Report:
  
  • https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/working-group-next-generation-repositories/
• Core Trust Seal - https://www.coretrustseal.org/
• ISO 27001 - https://www.oclc.org/en/policies/security.html