Point to `workflow.pacta` as a base image

[jdhoffa]

A new repository called workflow.pacta seems to (maybe?) have the goal of superseding the existing workflow.transition.monitor workflow. Whatever the "core PACTA engine" ends up being, this repository should make use of that as a base image.

AB#10658

[jdhoffa]

@cjyetman i think we are not actually ready to do this yet, but maybe something we will work toward?

[cjyetman]

🤷🏻 workflow.pacta is kinda out of my hands now, but generally speaking I would support this

[jdhoffa]

@AlexAxthelm thoughts?

[AlexAxthelm]

makes sense to me. Maybe wait a day or two though, since I'm planning on doing some work on workflow.pacta later today and tomorrow

[jdhoffa]

All good. The main question was more or less is workflow.pacta an experiment, or is it superseding existing PACTA. Sounds like the latter is true.

[cjyetman]

All good. The main question was more or less is workflow.pacta an experiment, or is it superseding existing PACTA. Sounds like the latter is true.

I think we need to think about this carefully. Although long term I hope workflow.pacta supersedes existing PACTA workflows, in the medium term we still need to support workflow.transition.monitor. And my super cautious side thinks we should build indices for/on the same workflow they are intended to be used with.

[jdhoffa]

This is the discussion I wanted to spark! haha

[jdhoffa]

Important takeaway from a recent discussion:
DO NOT DO THIS UNTIL PACTA COP IS OVER.

[AlexAxthelm]

DO NOT DO THIS UNTIL PACTA COP IS OVER.

DO NOT DO THIS UNTIL DATA PREP for PACTA COP IS OVER.

[jdhoffa]

Given that in the past we have had to run data prep upwards of 20 times, I don't know if there is a clear point that data prep is "over"

So I think best to wait until COP is actually over haha

(Obviously I very much hope that this time is not like that, but just trying to plan for reality)