I commented on the jwt one that I think it can be closed and why: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248#note-6
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:54 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
