478828 - Need an import of the production Spread Firefox database (including content?) so staging mirrors production as closely as possible

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 454287

(Websites Graveyard :: spreadfirefox.com, defect)

Description

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

We need to import the production Spread Firefox database, sans user-sensitive information (Alex knows to what I'm referring to), such that staging can closely mirror production (and help eliminate false bugs about content being outdated, etc).

This might actually need to be an IT bug, but I'll let Alex/someone else move it when that time comes.

Comment 1

[Alex Buchanan [:abuchanan]]

reed could you suggest the dupe, because I'm not sure.

Stephen, I've been thinking about how best to do this, and it's got some hurdles.  Mainly, trying to decide whether to copy production over fully and selectively keep certain information on stage, or only selectively copy from production.

I'm leaning towards selectively copying from production, so that we don't accidentally overwrite something on stage that someone is working on, but isn't finished (e.g. new pages, etc)

So, how hard would it be to figure out what to copy from stage?  Stephen could you help me there?  What stuff are looking to have production info?

Here's my list off the top of my head
  - groups
  - any content relate to a group, includes pages, events, comments, and more
  - users, but without sensitive user info, like emails, passwords
  - affiliates stats

What am I missing?

Comment 2

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

I'm looking for primarily dynamic content; Mary et al. can help out with the static content of, say, the individual project pages, which already exist on production and should "just be there" when we push.

Your list sounds good; I'm interested in things that primarily affect layout constraints and functionality.

If I think of something else in particular, I'll comment here to that effect, thanks!

Comment 3

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #1)
> reed could you suggest the dupe, because I'm not sure.

I was thinking about bug 477810.

Comment 4

[Alex Buchanan [:abuchanan]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > reed could you suggest the dupe, because I'm not sure.
> 
> I was thinking about bug 477810.

No, I think that bug is different.

Comment 5

[Reed Loden [:reed]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > reed could you suggest the dupe, because I'm not sure.
> 
> I was thinking about bug 477810.

There's also bug 454287...

Comment 7

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

Verified dup