On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 12:50 PM Austin Macdonald <amacd...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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 > Sorry to be a bit of nacker here, but I don't want to set my own naming conventions. And, as a project, I wouldn't want users overriding that either. The less opinionated you are the harder the supportability, as you are introducing variations that any user or developer has to parse to understand the issue. The changing of Pulp 2's service names seems the least invasive as they would be changed in the RPM spec files and automatically updated when that version was installed. This gives Pulp 3+ the cleanest flexibility going forward and more clearly identifies legacy components. > > > 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
