We should be consistent in how we refer to the site and database we're importing from. What's the best way to describe it? "source"? "legacy"? "external"?

Comments

mikeryan’s picture

Version: » 8.x-1.x-dev

"original"? Anyone have any thoughts? I don't have a strong preference myself...

wusel’s picture

Another wording:

"site to import" and "database to import".

hussainweb’s picture

I use source or legacy interchangingly as the situation demands. In database spec, I use 'legacy' whereas when talking about it, I use the word 'source'.

Given the general meaning of the word 'migrate', I think 'source' is more apt to describe the place from where the data moves.

benjy’s picture

+1 for source from me.

bdone’s picture

if it's a vote, +1 for source :)

wusel’s picture

Ok, "source" is correct in code. I agree fully.

But please think on the UI (user interface) as a UI. This is, what we see, when we want to upgrate from D6 or D7 to D8.

There may be many people, which have to change e.g. from D6 to D8. They run D6 for years without changes. Now (in 2015) they have to use the new (thanks!) migration.

Did they know, what is "source"? Or can it be better, to change the wording in the UI?

Could they understand "site to import" and "database to import" or "site to upgrate" and "database to upgrate" in the UI?

Wusel

Adding:
This is an import and not an upgrate! The old database does not change during the migration. If we upgrate e.g. from D6 to D7, then the old database is after the upgrate the "new" database. This is a difference!

hussainweb’s picture

This might be a cultural thing but I feel that "source database" is the most apt phrase out of the options we have (or that I can think of). I like the phrase "site to import" or "site to upgrade" even though it is a mouthful, but I think it might be confusing as site might mean different things. We could probably say "Address of the site to import", but that is too much and we are saying as much in the description anyway.

Between "site to import" and "site to upgrade", I would prefer the "import" version as "upgrade" somewhat suggests that the upgrade will be made on the same database, which is misleading.

My preference in order:

  1. Source Site
  2. Site to Import
piyushpoddar’s picture

+1 for source.

mohit_aghera’s picture

I will go for "Source". As it is more meaningful from migration perspective.

gargsuchi’s picture

Source database makes most sense for me.

Anonymous’s picture

Source makes the most sense. However, I noticed that in Drush we have had the word "legacy" for the db connection now. I don't agree with the use of the term legacy, but it is something to be aware of.

Example:
--legacy-db-url=mysql://d6:@localhost/d6

mikeryan’s picture

Status: Active » Fixed

"Source" is the consensus. See https://github.com/drush-ops/drush/issues/724 for why drush says --legacy-db-url.

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.