I have some reservations about using the name Snapshot. Specifically, I don’t think the snapshot term is a good fit. As wikipedia says [0], in CS a snapshot represents a state of something "in the past.” How would we describe the current state of the repository’s content then? I think "current version" would make sense but not "current snapshot.”
Also, changing the code in pulpcore and plugins is going to be a pain. Especially with the other things we have planned like renaming Importers to Remotes. I think this should factor into our decision as well. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot David On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Austin Macdonald <[email protected]> wrote: > "Snapshot" is a nice way to explain what a RepositoryVersion is, > especially in the context of Publications. "Publish a snapshot." I like > the idea, and I informally floated it around PulpCon but decided not to > propose it because: > > - Snapshot is a little misleading about the actual data we store. > Specifically, since RepositoryVersions are stored as diffs, when a user > views the "content in a version", this is calculated. This is a subtle > point, and hopefully not user facing at all, but I think snapshot implies a > little bit more certainty than we can offer. > - A snapshot also implies a slightly different workflow to me. The > workflow I expect with snapshots is to change Repositories "willy nilly", > and when you are satisfied, you "take" an snapshot. Versions imply the > workflow we have, which is that any time the content set of a Repository is > changed, a new version is created. > > However, I think those concerns are minor and are overshadowed by the > potential benefits. Also, I see a direct connection to the thread "Plugin > relationship to tasks". The name Snapshot/RepositoryVersion is part of the > choice of how we portray the changing of content set of a repo. > > 1. We can "change a repo" which creates a new version. > 2. We can "create a new version" which has different content. > > To me (1) implies "dispatching a task that has the side effect of creating > a new repository version. It would lend itself well to the concept of > "managing repositories" rather than "managing versions/snapshots". If we > choose this way, I think the name Snapshot conceptually makes sense. > > (2) implies a POST to create a new RepositoryVersion. As explained in the > plugin tasks thread, there are some problems with this, but it is similar > to the concept of creating a git commit. I think we wouldn't think of > "creating a new Snapshot" to change the content. > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I propose that we rename the RepositoryVersion model in Pulp 3 to >> Snapshot. The REST API would also change to use >> /api/v3/repositories/<uuid>/snapshot/ >> >> The Snapshot name is a better description of what a repository version is >> and it is also much shorter in length. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> -Dennis >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
