Moving udd to django

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> Martin Pool <mbp at sourcefrog.net> writes:

    > I think switching from batch html, handcoded sql and ssh access to
    > higher-level alternatives would be well worth while and Django seems
    > like a good choice. +1 from me, and also on the specific incremental
    > changes.

    > I agree with James, and disagree with Vincent, about bringing these
    > changes in to the running UDD importer.  It will benefit from eg
    > having a better web and admin ui,

True.

    > it will be less risky to deploy changes gradually,

Only if we have tested these changes before deployment which we can't do
for now (don't take my word for it, just look at the lp:udd
history). Even my recent changes in this regard gave us the ability to
*manually* test locally (and there, look at revno 555 history for cases
I had to fix on top of our actual test suite).

    > and we are better off not forking if we can avoid it.  Eventually
    > we can split it into separate services/components.

I'm all in favor of splitting, I'm advocating the less risky (and as
such the cheapest) way to get there.

That's just my humble opinion, those doing the coding, testing *and*
deployment will have the final word.

     Vincent