Great, thanks.
David On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > If you are using the dev environment produced by the pulp/devel repo then > doing a vagrant destroy and vagrant up is the easiest way. Just make sure > you fetched all the latest changes from all the repos. > > If you want to port an existing environment into RQ, you should: > > 1. install RQ (the special commit version, see the current installation > docs) > 2. update the systemd files (see the examples in the docs) > 3. restart your workers > > If there are issues during ^ steps reach out and we can help resolve them. > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:39 PM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Is there any way to convert an existing dev environment to use rq? >> >> Or do I just need to vagrant destroy and vagrant up? >> >> >> David >> >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev