We also have called it "Pulp to Pulp sync" informally. On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:23 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote:
> So syncing from one Pulp server to another Pulp server is usually called > 'natural syncing'. See [0][1]. > > AFAIK, there is no official concept of master/nodes/etc in Pulp anymore > since in the case of natural syncing, there’s nothing special about either > instance of Pulp. We have used the terms ‘parent’ and ‘child’ though (as in > the blog post I linked to). > > [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/1488 > [1] https://pulpproject.org/2016/12/07/deprecating-nodes/ > > > > David > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Eric Helms <ehe...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Howdy, >> >> The simple question is there any nomenclature used when referring to a >> Pulp server and another Pulp server that syncs from the previous one? >> >> The background behind this question is as follows. Pulp at a time had the >> concept of masters and nodes. With the removal of the official node-concept >> and code, we still have references to Pulp "nodes" in our code base. If >> there is newer nomenclature for the case of having a Pulp master that other >> Pulp instances sync from I'd like to adopt that to help with parity across >> communities. >> >> I should also ask if "Pulp master" is correct as well. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Eric >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev