2024-02-08 Meeting notes
Date
Feb 8, 2024
Participants
@Feanil Patel
@Felipe Montoya
@Michelle Philbrick
@Kyle McCormick
@Sarina Canelake
@Tobias Macey
@Navin Karkera
@Jeremy Ristau
@Robert Raposa
@Tim Krones
@Maksim Sokolskiy
@Xavier Antoviaque
@Max Frank
Goals
Discussion topics
Time | Item | Presenter | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
| Review TODOs from Last time | @Feanil Patel |
|
| Ubuntu Upgrade | @Tobias Macey | MIT already running using Debian Buster instead of Ubuntu and using standard python Docker Images
|
Node 18 → 20 Upgrade | @Feanil Patel | Looks like we’ll have to accelerate this upgrade to keep things functional. @Adolfo Brandes can you provide some context here? Context:
| |
| Moving NPM workspaces | @Adolfo Brandes | Turns out it’s a pretty manual process. @Brian Smith and now @Yagnesh Nayi have been contributing PRs, but as usual, the more contributors, the merrier!
|
| Maintenance burden of org-specific code | @Adolfo Brandes | In going through the above (in particular, when upgrading frontend-app-course-authoring dependencies), we found that the Video Upload feature is not realistically usable by the community. Not only that, it’s not feasible to run it locally for the purpose of, for example, fixing unit tests. We proposed that in such situations, the unit tests be disabled / made non-blocking as a workaround, and long-term, the feature should be pluggified, deprecated, or put in the docs and other work to make it usable by the community.
|
| Ruby Upgrade in Comment Service | @Maksim Sokolskiy | What’s the plan with the ruby upgrade?
|
| Central vs Distributed Tasks for Upgrades |
| Who will be in charge of the centralized tasks for upgrades?
|
Previous Action Items
Action items
Decisions
edx-platform Maintenance Meeting Notes
Participants
@Feanil Patel
@Kyle McCormick
@Tobias Macey
@Jeremy Ristau
@Robert Raposa
Discussion Topics
Time | Item | Presenter | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
| Historic edx-platform maintenance state | @Kyle McCormick | We had a central team that would route to experts within 2U. We think that was a good system but we would want to build that with CCs instead of a 2U internal ownership delegation.
|
| Impending Redwood Upgrades |
|
|