See comment below on option 2. On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms <ehe...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Howdy, > > In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran > side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource > manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources > being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you > can't tell them apart). > > I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this > situation. > > > Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services > > Example: pulp3-resource-manager > > Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services. > > Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with > semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along. > > > Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2- > > Example: pulp2-resource-manager > > Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users onto > their setups or through RPM releases. > > Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2 > version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway). > [rchan] My expectation is that we will levy this requirement on upgrades/migrations anyway, so I don't think this con applies for this suggestion. _______________________________________________ > 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
