+1 On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Jeff Ortel <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1, This sounds good to me. > > On 05/11/2017 10:59 AM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > > We had a brainstorm session today to re-evaluate the > previously-identified options, and try to come up with > > some new ones. None of the previously-identified options had enough > support to be chosen. See the thread "PyPI > > names for Pulp3" for background. > > > > To re-cap, we are focused on two related questions: > > > > 1. What python namespace should Pulp use, since we cannot continue to > use "pulp"? > > > > 2. What PyPI package names should we use? > > > > I pitched an idea for 1 that everyone on the call liked, which is > "pulpcore". It could alternatively be > > "pulp_core", although my pinky finger prefers the former. The group of > roughly 10 people who participated in > > the discussion are recommending "pulpcore" for consideration as the > python namespace to replace "pulp". Please > > add your feedback to this thread. > > > > "core" is likable because it implies a plugin architecture. It's similar > to the word "platform" that we've > > used extensively, but shorter (which people liked), and perhaps slightly > more descriptive (which people also > > liked). Example: > > > > from pulpcore import streamer > > > > We discussed renaming what is currently "pulp.platform" to something > more descriptive. "platform" is a word > > that's been with us a long time, but it's worth re-considering, > especially if we shift to a similar word such > > as "core". "pulpcore.platform" seems awkward. > > > > A proposal is "pulpcore.apps", since that code is all directly related > to the celery app and django app. > > > > Python namespaces would include: > > > > pulpcore.apps > > pulpcore.cli > > pulpcore.common > > pulpcore.plugin > > pulpcore.streamer > > > > For python package names, they would look something like this: > > > > pip install pulpcore > > pip install pulpcore_cli > > pip install pulpcore_streamer > > pip install pulpcore_common > > > > Plugins would continue to use their existing namespace and package > names, with whatever variations are > > appropriate in Pulp 3. For example: > > > > import pulp_rpm.plugins > > pip install pulp_rpm_plugins > > > > Thoughts? Those of you who were part of the discussion, please chime in > with any additional points you'd like > > to highlight. > > > > -- > > > > Michael Hrivnak > > > > Principal Software Engineer, RHCE > > > > Red Hat > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
