►
From YouTube: Workspace sync 2021/11/03
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Okay,
great,
so
I
believe
I
have
a
first
item
agenda.
I'm
just
trying
to
find
there's
salad,
updated
me
on
the
environment,
for
testing
migration.
There's
two
the
two
issues
there.
So
we
still
wait
for
the
environment,
but
there's
some
progress,
so
I
hope
it
will
be
useful.
We
will
we
can
like
test
it
and
check
it
out
pretty
soon.
A
So
this
is
from
me
and
the
other
part
to
understand
correctly
from
the
daily
updates
that
we
are
now
focusing
on
creating
background
migration
and
also
breaking
down
phase
two
issues.
C
Filtering
project
namespaces:
there
are
a
couple
other
mrs
there,
and
there
is
also
work
left
with
the
create
project.
Namespace.
C
Right
now
so
I'll
be
committing
that,
and
I
think
charlie
was
saying
she
will
take
a
look
at
that
also
when
she
comes
back
and
in
regard
to
backfield
migration,
I
did
move
today
to
the
to
review.
It's
not.
The
migration
itself
is
the
code
behind
the
migration.
Basically,
so
we
can
have
decoding
master
and
then
we
can
just
spin
up
a
migration
when
we
need
one
either
for
a
specific
group
or
for
the
entire
thing,
and
so
on.
So.
A
And
what
is
like,
do
you
have
any
idea
when
it's
going
to
be
merged
or
when
it's
going
to
be
related.
C
It
ended
up
being
quite
a
big
one,
because
I've
also
had
to
add
a
lot
of
the
isolation
code
in
there,
as
we
usually
do.
With
the
background
migrations.
C
B
Yeah
just
a
minute.
B
Membership
consolidation
to
the
epic
and
edit
subtasks.
So
if
anyone
has
a
couple
of
minutes,
please
please
take
a
look
and
also
it
would
be
cool
if
someone
from
managex's
team
or
manage
team
could
review
this,
because
this
is
in
scope
of
their
domain.
Expertise
and
their
feedback
would
be
very
valuable.
A
Will
I
will
painting
I'm
again
to
find
if
someone
from
access
have
have
time
to
to
do
that?
I
hope
I
hope
so.
C
Yeah,
on
the
same
note,
I
have
probed
down
the
roads
related
issue.
I
did
not
move
it
yet
into
specific
issues,
because
I
find
it
easier
to
collaborate
and
discuss
within
a
single
thread
and
once
we
kind
of
come
to
an
agreement,
then
we
can
move
it
to
specific
issues.
I've
tried
to
add
some
estimates,
but,
like
don't
heavily
rely
on
those
ones,
it's
a
really
high
level
estimate
sort
of
how
I
I
see
things.
A
C
C
To
replace
the
routes
that
are
pointing
to
a
project
to
point
to
a
project
namespace
so
yeah,
there
is
some
dilemma
there:
how
to
approach
it
either
by
replacing
war,
adding
kind
of
a
duplicate
record
in
the
routes
table
to
point
to
the
project
namespace
that
allows
us
to
switch
in
between
if
something
goes
wrong.
So
I
think
that's
what
we
are
leaning
towards
yeah,
I
don't
know
for
the
others.
I
didn't
really
dive
into
memberships,
but
I
think.
B
C
Where,
like
it
seems
a
bit
more
complicated,
maybe
I
don't
know
how
that
interferes
with
the
permissions
access,
like
all
that,
I
don't
know
if
that
interferes
in
any
way
at
all,
or
we
are
just
able
to
do
some
sort
of
a
back
feeling
where,
like
moving
records
around
and
things
like
that
and
everything
just
works
out.
I
don't
exactly
know
because
I
don't
because
I
don't
know.
B
A
B
B
B
C
Yeah,
it
may
be
like
we
don't
have
the
qa,
but
it
may
very
well
be
that
we
need
to
look
into
query
performance
even
before
we
do
any
of
the
other,
like
crowding
or
membership
or
anything
right
once
we
start
populating
the
namespaces
table.
It
may
very
well
be
that
we
need
to
look
at
some
of
those
queries.
First,.
C
Yeah,
like
I
mean
that
query
performance
issue
that
we
have,
there
is
kind
of
a
broader
scope.
I
think
it's
not
only
related
to
the
memberships
because,
like
we,
we
may
need
to
investigate
how
we
can,
or
we
can
have
some
performance
hits
because
we
are
now
proxying,
for
instance,
routes
through
the
project
namespace
to
get
to
the
project.
So
I
like,
I
think
we
can
make
it
wider
and
then
have
specific
points
to
deal
with
in
within
the
within
that
issue.
C
B
A
So,
to
ask
in
really
simple
terms:
does
that
mean
that
once
we
consolidated
the
project
name
spaces,
the
way
that
we
call
calculate
authorization
would
be
more
similar
to
how
we
do
it
for
groups
today
than
how
we
do
it
for
our
projects
today?
Basically,
no
jobs
running
like
the
project,
authorization,
jobs
and
all
of
that.