There is some additional work to be done with the installer https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4187#note-3
I've created a new story for the installer to allow a user to override the default and specify whatever name they choose for each component. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 12:32 PM Eric Helms <ehe...@redhat.com> wrote: > If I read the solution as hyphens vs underscores as implemented in > ansible-pulp3 today then yes, it's still very confusing which is which. > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019, 12:25 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I agree with rchan and am thus leaning towards option 2. >> >> Just to be clear though, we renamed pulp 3’s services recently to avoid >> conflict[0] with pulp 2. However, it sounds like this solution isn’t good >> enough as it’s hard for users to identify which set of services go with >> which version of pulp? >> >> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4187 >> >> David >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:55 AM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ > 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
