And pulp_python On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote:
> RQ is merged to pulp, pulp_file, pulp-smash, and devel. We also ported and > merged pulp_ansible. This will be released with beta 3 of core coming out > this Wednesday. > > If anyone runs into any issues please reach out via IRC or the mailing > list. > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> There's been a slight change in schedule. Now we believe the lowest risk >> option is to merge today instead of tomorrow. >> >> We're finishing the latest rebase now, letting Travis tell us it's good, >> and then merging it. We'll send a final note to the list post merge. >> >> Thanks to everyone for helping out! >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 to advance notice, and +1 to @bmbouter and @dalley on the work, >>> review/testing, and blog post. >>> >>> Dana Walker >>> >>> Associate Software Engineer >>> >>> Red Hat >>> >>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:20 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Great work on this. Also, thanks for announcing this on pulp-dev well >>>> in advance. >>>> >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> dalley has learned how to do some debugging already, so maybe he can >>>>> look at doing a demo. Good suggestion, Kersom. It would be good to >>>>> link to in a blog post - and also point out the good demo @bmbouter >>>>> put together for pulp 2. >>>>> >>>>> great job @dalley & @bmbouter on the blog post! >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Kersom <ker...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> > At the proper time, a demo about the Pulp 3 task system will be very >>>>> > beneficial. I am thinking about something similar what it was done >>>>> for Pulp >>>>> > 2. >>>>> > >>>>> > Looking forward for this. >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> All PRs have Travis showing green and all necessary LGTMs. The plan >>>>> is to >>>>> >> merge next Tuesday the 15th, which means it will be in core Beta 4. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Yesterday, @dalley and I published a blog post which outlines the >>>>> change >>>>> >> for users along with a porting guide for plugins to port onto RQ as >>>>> well. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://pulpproject.org/2018/05/08/pulp3-moving-to-rq/ >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Thank you to everyone for the help, collaboration, and energy on >>>>> this >>>>> >> significant change. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I've finished my review and resolved all of the 'blocker' issues >>>>> that >>>>> >>> were uncovered during testing. Overall, I'm highly confident that >>>>> this is a >>>>> >>> better path forwards than the continued use of Celery / Kombu. >>>>> There are a >>>>> >>> couple of outstanding edge cases to be resolved eventually, which >>>>> I plan to >>>>> >>> file as issues post-merge, but nothing serious or intractable. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> If there are no objections, I think it would be reasonable to >>>>> merge this >>>>> >>> code after this week's beta builds are published (after, in order >>>>> to avoid >>>>> >>> major changes during Summit / PyCon prep time). >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Thank you, Brian, for doing the planning and work needed to make >>>>> this >>>>> >>> happen. It was a lot of effort and is very highly appreciated. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Brian Bouterse < >>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Through several rebases, now all PRs are showing the RQ PRs on >>>>> Travis as >>>>> >>>> passing with pulp-smash. Several points of feedback have been >>>>> addressed. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> If you're interested in commenting on these PRs or trying them >>>>> out, >>>>> >>>> please do. I hope to merge after the other taking system >>>>> maintainers @dalley >>>>> >>>> and @daviddavis have finished their testing/review and barring >>>>> any other >>>>> >>>> calls for delay or blocking concerns. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> If there are any questions, issues, or concerns, please reach >>>>> out, and >>>>> >>>> we can talk through them. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Brian Bouterse < >>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I put together a prototype and posted the PRs. I'm still working >>>>> to get >>>>> >>>>> Travis happy, but locally 100% of smash tests using these >>>>> branches. It's >>>>> >>>>> worked very reliably for me so far. There are no gaps in the >>>>> pulp feature >>>>> >>>>> set on top of RQ. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope people test it out and give some feedback. See the commit >>>>> >>>>> messages for details on what was done. Here are the PRs: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3454 >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/72 >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/pulp/devel/pull/146 >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/PulpQE/pulp-smash/pull/960 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to send questions here or to the PR. Any feedback is >>>>> welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Milan Kovacik < >>>>> mkova...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> +1 I like RQ and I like http://python-rq.org/docs/testing/ esp. >>>>> >>>>>> there's Fakeredis ;) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>> milan >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Brian Bouterse < >>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> > Thanks for all the discussion both on list and on irc. After >>>>> more >>>>> >>>>>> > investigation, it sounds like there are no feature gaps, but >>>>> we will >>>>> >>>>>> > need to >>>>> >>>>>> > incorporate this workaround to cancel a task that is already >>>>> >>>>>> > running. >>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> > The feedback I've heard on the idea is that it's valuable and >>>>> looks >>>>> >>>>>> > feasible, but we won't really know until we prototype it a >>>>> bit. >>>>> >>>>>> > Based on the >>>>> >>>>>> > technical outline in the previous email, I believe it can be >>>>> >>>>>> > prototyped in a >>>>> >>>>>> > day or two. I plan to do this soon, once I contribute to a >>>>> few other >>>>> >>>>>> > required-for-beta planning items first. I'll post my PR to >>>>> see what >>>>> >>>>>> > other >>>>> >>>>>> > think of the change, probably next week. >>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Daniel Alley < >>>>> dal...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> I meant in the sense that, what is the aftermath when it >>>>> comes back >>>>> >>>>>> >> online, and is it screwed up in ways that cause side effects. >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Audet < >>>>> jau...@redhat.com> >>>>> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>> > RQ does not support revoking tasks. If you send the >>>>> worker a >>>>> >>>>>> >>> > SIGINT, >>>>> >>>>>> >>> > it will finish the task and then stop processing new >>>>> ones. If >>>>> >>>>>> >>> > you send the >>>>> >>>>>> >>> > worker SIGKILL, it will stop immediately, but I don't >>>>> think it >>>>> >>>>>> >>> > gracefully >>>>> >>>>>> >>> > handles this circumstance. >>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>> Nothing handles SIGKILL gracefully. Processes can't catch >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>>> >>> signal. >>>>> >>>>>> >>> `kill -9 $pid` sends SIGKILL. >>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>> If one is looking for a way to gracefully, immediately kill >>>>> an RQ >>>>> >>>>>> >>> worker, then SIGTERM may do the trick. Anecdotally, many >>>>> processes >>>>> >>>>>> >>> handle this signal in a hurried fashion. Semantically, this >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>>> >>> appropriate: SIGINT is the "terminal interrupt" signal >>>>> (Ctrl+c >>>>> >>>>>> >>> sends >>>>> >>>>>> >>> SIGINT), whereas SIGTERM is the "termination signal." >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>>> > 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 >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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