Nate Coraor

I might’ve been confusing so just in case: we’d sill have all these fancy new states, we just would only set them on the Job, not the Job and Dataset...

Yep, definitely want to bump this. Thanks!

So, moving the state tracking to the job was exactly why this PR stalled (albeit not for performance reasons, but yeah, I see how this is potentially problematic). That said,...

Yeah, I think that was what I was waffling over - whether HDAs, LDDAs, and all other dataset instances should get a `creating_job_id` column, although this duplicates the `job_to_output_*` tables....

> since collections get their state this way Ah yeah, that was what I was thinking of.

I'm unsure on this it looks like code `0:125` should only be happening if processes were really killed. You're sure nothing's been killed when you're seeing this?

Yeah, that'd be ideal I think.

Thanks for putting such thought and time in to your reply @erasche, I agree with all of this as well. I will add, there's one other potential benefit for admins...

@nsoranzo: @jxtx proposed this ~10 years ago. We'll get to it very soon I'm sure. ;)

Whoops, didn't realize those tools would be run as part of the regular tool tests.