Page Comparison

Many Git projects are migrating away from using master

 as a branchname (moving to main). Note that on October 1st the new default will be "main" - which we could override if needed. FOLIO should follow suit. GitHub is working on some tools to

make repo migration easier, but I bet we’ll need to make some devops changes on our end. Should we start planning for this now? Is it the TC’s business to push this?

Discussion:

• Obviously we'll need to consider following Github's lead
• As this gets more common more people will expect that we adopt the new standard
• We'd need to understand the impact and what work will be required
• Words matter, and terms like "master" or "blacklist/whitelist" can be offensive/have a negative connotation to some people, and should be avoid if/when possible 
• Is this really a question for Product Council rather than Tech Council?
• Next Steps:
  • Present the issue to Product Council and let them know that we are estimating the impact of making the master-to-main change. Mike to inform PC.
  • Review the impact and come up with a rough estimate of work (Mike to reach out to Jakub)
  • Present the estimate of cost/impact to the Product Council

Monday the Support SIG discussed UIIN-1244 and noted the difference in expectations about search among librarians and developers. Acknowledging search is a biiiiiig topic but a very important one to end users, the question folks wanted an answer to was whether pursuing ElasticSearch would be good to use project resources rather than implementing field by field indexes. (We heard SPL was pursuing ES [so maybe we should avoid dickering with indexes if that work is coming soon], then we heard SPL wasn’t pursing ES so maybe we should fix the indexes or start pursuing ES ourselves…) 

Notes: 

• Yes - generally - its more productive to work on Elastic Search rather than pursuing more field-by-field indexes/tuning. We hesitate to make a unilateral recommendation because we don't yet know when the ES Solution will be available to FOLIO and any individual case might be able to wait but others may not.
• SPL is in fact implementing ES - just not in a way that can be leveraged/consumed by broader FOLIO.
• Per the Architectural Blueprint process - we're at the point where TC needs to determine how and when to move forward with the ES plan.

Review updates made after last week's meeting.

Discussion:

• An observation is that many of these items are not getting the attention that would be required to make stead progress - people are stretched and don't have enough cycles.
• The truly highest priority/most pressing issues will get the most attention
• Process to relieve the PR Review dilemma not always being followed (hard to document and discuss as/when necessary)- tech leads are trying to figure out a way to address the pain points and ensure decisions that need to be made can be made efficiently. This has some relationship with Arch Blueprint items.