Decisions look good to me.
On 12/5/18 11:36 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
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
<mailto:davidda...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Awesome, thanks!
David
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:44 AM Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com
<mailto: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
<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
o @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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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:
o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2889
o IMO: We should make this an RC Blocker,
because this will be an additional requirement
for every task in every plugin.
* Determine mutable fields
o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2635
o 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
o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2850
o 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
o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2989
o IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a
backwards incompatible change.
* Asynchronous Distribution update/delete
o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3044
o IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a
backwards incompatible change.
Packaging
* Port dependencies to Python 3
o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2247
o 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
o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2656
o 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
o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3062
o IMO: RC Blocker. This is how users should
migrate, so it should be correct before RC
* jwt
o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248
o This was removed from Beta (MVP) but do we
need this for RC/GA?
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto: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
