I'm not opposed to this plan, I just want to point out that it would make the status API make slightly less sense. The names in the list of installed plugins would then not be the same as the packages themselves. It's probably close enough as to not be a problem though.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:23 PM Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:12 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> My understanding is that it's for both. It would be dropped from >> app_label and that will automatically be used in master/detail urls. Is >> that what others thought? >> >> This seems like the simplest approach to me. My only concern with this > approach is making sure that the database will be properly namespaced so > there won't be collisions with other applications that use postgres like > Katello. AFAIK, the plugin tables don't need to be namespaced since they > are already in the "pulp" database. Is that correct? If so, +1. > _______________________________________________ > 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
