Awesome, thanks! David
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:44 AM Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com> wrote: > For those with ambiguity, I added the RC blocker to force discussion and > [acceptance | closing]. > > Added RC Blocker: > > - Add task names: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2889 > - Determine mutable fields: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2635 > - pulp-manager migrate order: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3062 > - @david - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4067#note-5 > - Asynchronous Distribution update/delete: > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3044 > - Distribution base_path model validation: > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3051 > > Closed: > > - Viewable status endpoint w/out database running: > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2850 > - Port Dependencies to Python3: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2247 > - Plugins can specify plugin API version: > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2656 > > No action: > > - jwt: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248 > - Add Publication.created (MODIFIED, david++): > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2989 > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for digging through older issues to find potential RC blockers. >> >> 2889 - +1 to making it an RC blocker >> 2635 - +1 here as well >> 2850 - I spent some time working on this and didn’t get far. I think we >> should just require the db to be running. I vote to close it out. >> 2989 - +1 to RC blocker >> 3044 - I guess we should revisit 3051 and decide on a design before the >> RC which will determine if the distribution endpoints need to be async? >> 2247 - Agreed on closing. Seems like we open issues on an as-needed basis >> 2656 - Seems like this is done or am I missing something? >> 3062 - Will checking in migrations to source control not solve this >> problem? >> 3248 - I haven’t heard anyone asking for jwt so I would say we don’t need >> it. We can just leave the issue open I think. >> >> David >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:41 PM Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> To be on the safe side, I'd like to highlight issues that *might* need >>> to be RC blockers. Please reply directly onto the issue, I'll update this >>> thread periodically if necessary. >>> >>> REST API, backwards incompatible changes: >>> >>> - Add Task Names: >>> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2889 >>> - IMO: We should make this an RC Blocker, because this will be an >>> additional requirement for every task in every plugin. >>> - Determine mutable fields >>> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2635 >>> - IMO: someone (or a group) should take this as assigned and >>> audit the mutability of fields. If we find one that needs to change, >>> it >>> will be a backwards incompatible change to the REST API, so this >>> should >>> have the RC blocker tack. >>> - Status API without db connection >>> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2850 >>> - IMO: RC blocker or close. As it is the db connection field is >>> not useful, and later removal would be backwards incompatible. >>> - Add new field, Publication.created >>> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2989 >>> - IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a backwards >>> incompatible change. >>> - Asynchronous Distribution update/delete >>> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3044 >>> - IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a backwards >>> incompatible change. >>> >>> Packaging >>> >>> - Port dependencies to Python 3 >>> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2247 >>> - IMO: It seems like if this weren't done, we'd be having >>> problems. Anyone mind if I close this one? If we do need to keep it >>> open, >>> should it be an RC blocker? >>> - Plugins can declare PluginAPI version >>> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2656 >>> - IMO: Are we happy with what we've got now? If we want to change >>> it, now is the time. >>> >>> Misc >>> >>> - pulp-manager migrate order >>> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3062 >>> - IMO: RC Blocker. This is how users should migrate, so it should >>> be correct before RC >>> - jwt >>> - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248 >>> - This was removed from Beta (MVP) but do we need this for RC/GA? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
