Thank you everyone for your feedback. I agree that snapshot carries some connotations that are not congruent with the mental model we want to present to our users. -1 from me also :)
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:35 AM, David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > I concur with @dalley. I read through the wikipedia article on snapshots > in computer storage again and it just doesn’t seem to fit our model. > Snapshots typically mean backups or archives and using them to describe the > current state of the repository doesn’t make sense. As Ina says, a user > should instead trigger a snapshot to create a copy/backup/archive of a > repository’s content. Creating a new snapshot automatically by modifying > the current state of the repo doesn’t make sense. > > > David > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -0 to changing the name. Shorter is good, but I do think the name is >> misleading, and I disagree with the reasoning provided in the meeting the >> other day that "snapshot is more self-explanatory" - which I don't believe >> that it is. >> >> this term is not unique to Pulp so it is easier to explain to the user >> >> >> I think Ina's point from the other day about what meaning other >> developers - not affiliated with pulp - associate with the name "snapshot" >> shouldn't be dismissed. If we're reusing a term but attaching a meaning to >> it that is not quite the same as what the average person would guess it >> was, the information won't "stick" as well. >> >> Sure, there are Pulp concepts that have to be explained to the user in >> any event, but we should still try to match their expectations as closely >> as possible. >> >> And while I'd welcome data to the contrary, I don't think a user would >> have a harder time understanding the concept of a "RepositoryVersion" than >> they would a "Snapshot". It's pure composition. People are familiar with >> repositories, people are familiar with versions.. I don't see a problem >> there. >> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Ina Panova <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 to keep RepositoryVersion. >>> >>> I also do not like the fact that it is quite long, that's why i do like >>> the Snapshot, but thinking more of what snapshot is - is something that >>> *you* need to trigger and it is not triggered automatically. >>> I'd say, we are working with repository versioning and not snapshots. >>> >>> Back to aptly, they use the term shapshot, which you need to manually >>> create https://www.aptly.info/doc/aptly/snapshot/create/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ina Panova >>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>> >>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Matthias Dellweg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I guess, you meant 'RepositoryVersions' there. Maybe it is just a typo, >>>> or maybe your subconciousness already adepted to this change. ;) >>>> >>>> I'm +1, because from the REST API or model view, you do not ask what >>>> changed, but rather what is in that snapshot|version. >>>> And since you are renaming all models of pulp3 atm, you are giving a >>>> plugin maintainer a hard time, anyway. I think, it's now or never. >>>> >>>> Matthias >>>> >>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:55:14 -0400 >>>> David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > I’m not too worried about the change being too large. However, I >>>> > agree with @dalley though about snapshot not fitting my mental model >>>> > of how I view snapshots so any work seems like a loss to me. >>>> > >>>> > I’m at -1 but am happy to talk more about it. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > David >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > I think of a "snapshot" like a VM snapshot or a Windows restore >>>> > > point - an archival copy of a very fluid and non-discrete system at >>>> > > one point in time. By that understanding, the term >>>> > > RepositoryVersion probably fits better. >>>> > > >>>> > > I acknowledge the other benefits though. -/+0? >>>> > > >>>> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected] >>>> > >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> The article you link to just says that "a snapshot is the state of >>>> > >> a system at a particular point in time". The point in time can be >>>> > >> now or in the past. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> The current state of a repository's content would be described as >>>> > >> the latest or most recent snapshot of a repository. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> I am not too worried about the pain of doing the refactoring across >>>> > >> multiple repos. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:20 AM, David Davis >>>> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >>> 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 >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Herzliche Grüße aus München >>>> >>>> Matthias Dellweg >>>> ______________________________________________________ >>>> Dr. Matthias M. Dellweg >>>> >>>> (Open Source Software Engineer) >>>> >>>> Tel: +49 (0)89 452 35 38-12 >>>> Fax: +49 (0)89 452 35 38-290 >>>> E-Mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> ATIX - The Linux & Open Source Company >>>> >>>> ATIX Informationstechnologie und Consulting AG >>>> Parkring 15 >>>> 85748 Garching bei München >>>> www.atix.de >>>> >>>> >>>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, Registernummer: HRB 168930 >>>> USt.-Id.: DE209485962 >>>> Vorstand: Thomas Merz (Vors.), Mark Hlawatschek >>>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Dr. Martin Buss >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
