General discussion:
- The commit bit to pulp/pulp_rpm has been given to QE team.
- Codeowners [0] for functional tests in pulp/pulp_rpm
- Agreed to add
- AI: David to open PR to add codeowners. Add some docs to wiki.
Pulp 2:
- Potentially an issue with sync of Fedora 29 repo, expecting a bug
report and steps to reproduce from a user.
Pulp 3:
- Modularity considerations [1]
- Due to RPM specific dependencies Pulp3 RPM plugin will be available
on RH distros only or containerized
- Sprint candidates [2][3][4]
- will be considered after tomorrow's sprint planning, depend on number
of pulpcore RC items and other priorities
- Issue discussed: sync fails if there are same artifacts in
different repos with different relative paths
- repo1 has foo.rpm
- repo2 has nested_dir/foo.rpm
- paths are different, artifact is the same
- right now only one relative path can be for content-artifact
relation
- Questions:
1. Is there a need to replicate directory structure from upstream without
configuring explicitly a path for publication?
- Agreed that expectation is that upstream directory structure should be
preserved by default.
- AI: Tanya will start a discussion on pulp-dev to hear from other
plugins and to discuss how to do it and where to introduce
the change
2. How to fix the issue for now?
- use a filename as a relative_path for now
- directory structure of the upstream won't be preserved until
the question #1 is resolved
- some functional tests don't seem to be isolated
- AI: Tanya to check and follow up with QE to see if it was done on
purpose or if it should be improved
[0] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00040.html
[1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4162
[2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4295 - ready to go on the sprint
[3] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4412 - needs triaging
[4] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4413 - needs grooming
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
