Comment 15 for bug 104088

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Robert Collins
<email address hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Curtis Hovey
> <email address hidden> wrote:
>> This is a large amount of work, the jobs, emails to users, the bugs
>> about what merge is not doing right. Undertaking this is feature level
>> work. It is removing an engineer from other features for a release. The
>> registry team is still working on briding-the-gap while stakeholders and
>> the rest of the launchpad team ask why the new privacy has not started.
>
> So (paraphrasing) - its not a small fix, and engineers can't simply
> take (say) 2 weeks to put all the pieces into place. Further to that,
> this isn't amenable to incremental fixes (because it needs to be done
> outside the web transaction and that itself is several days work at
> the moment).

Moving the existing merge algorithm out of band would be a nice
incremental fix and a suitable test case for the messaging system when
it is available. Instead of calling the merge function and report
'ok', we send a message and report 'pending'. The daemon listening
invokes the existing merge and logs an OOPS if it fails. The load on
messaging will be trivial, and the resulting daemon will be minimal
and provide a template for more advanced uses.

Improving the UI (emails on success, web server polling until job
complete etc.) can be further incremental fixes later.

--
Stuart Bishop <email address hidden>
http://www.stuartbishop.net/