Database project created, with rhl as project lead.

It shares a configuration with PIPE-2D, so that all issue types, workflows, etc should be the same. It also means that changing the configuration of one of the projects will change the configuration of the other. I think that's what we want, unless you expect DB to have some unusual requirements.

Ah, could it be more specific as science database, rhl swinbank?
We have various database products even in instrument control, but not tend to be filed into this project.

We could either keep one project for all DBs or two projects. I don't think that there's a real difference – let's go with two; one SCIDB, and one OPDB.

I assumed this to include all discussed in science-database, including e.g. spec viewer, which are under development for science analysis. So I proposed to name as specific to 'science database' domain.

For now, there is no ticket filed under 'DB' yet, so we can do any without any side effect...

I'm confused by this comment. On 2017-10-18 I thought I asked for SCIDB and OPDB; what clarification are you asking for?

Sorry that I was totally not clear. Let me make myself clearer in this comment.

background:

• operational database is under Yasuda-san, which was originally coordinated to store data required for instrument and science operation in integrated way, like from entire list of target, definitions and executed configurations with telemetry of instrument operation.
• science database is named as "database" but actually is a collection of tools for science analysis toward building them as publications.

motivation:

• two projects, even operational database is a smaller one but originally would be shared as an infrastructural coordinated backend system among existing projects including instrument operation, data reduction, and survey coordination (incl. exposure targeting), have a word 'database' in their name, but these two are quite different in both target areas and users.
• we made items named as 'database' in JIRA (and else), but at that time both projects - operational database and science database - was active, and it was afraid to be confused in between.

history:

• development and discussion for science database project is actively undergo under strong initiative of Naoyuki, but held mostly at mail list and offsite, so almost no development support services (incl. both github and JIRA) is used. so as for now 'database' project is empty and there is no side effect to rename it (e.g. change of URL).
• development and integration of operational database into existing software modules are not so active recently. It was assumed to have dedicated place for discussion and coordination into both JIRA and github. we already have github repository under spt_, but no code module used for testing and evaluation of control loops (simulation of survey operation) is uploaded after initial upload of scheme PDF file.

situation:

• I've got an approval to change name and to have two project (SCIDB and OPDB), but I really need to confirm about possible side effects and circulate an announcement if required not to make people in project(s).
• I've posted the last comment for a record.

Reading your note you support splitting the projects. What's stopping you from doing it?

Sorry for slow progress, but I need to secure a time slot to recall memory on operation and check and to work on. Please let me have some time...

• change project key from project edit page
• finish background re-index
• no ticket filed yet, so no need to fix project links
• no agile board contains this project, no need to fix boards

task finished.

No error found in an integrity check