Page Comparison

• Reflect on the 2.1.0 Release Process

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

Look at how things fit together - Lynette spent time to write up a process based on documented branching models.

(1) trunk-based development

(2) flow

That branch should be contained and ready to go - so when we cut a big release - the normal flow would be to deploy for QA testing and continue to develop on Master as that's going on. If there's a conflict between flow of QA testing and ensuringgood QA and release and good development - can branch a release branch.

Anything that happens on a long lived branch needs to be back-ported from master

Biggest problems with 2.1 release; uncertainty about numbering (resolved fairly easily)

Amount of resources we had to ask for from specific people isn't sustainable

the Hyrax WG will help with that in the future

Cut another release in a week as Hyrax WG works. Coordinate with SVT and Chris as QA lead (Diaz).

As Hyrax WG spins up - talk with Chris about QA on minor releases. Fairly good sense for what that looks like.

Big Kudos to QA testing (Lynette). And thanks to Lynette!

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