+1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services. It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction of legacy version. I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones unchanged and more importantly without version in the name. -0 to make names configurable.
Tanya On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users have > upgraded to a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3. As a > suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release but > whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the > version we are supporting the upgrade from. > +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less variation in > naming conventions. > +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will lock > services names to Pulp version. > > @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make only > the hyphens change. > @asmacdo <amacd...@redhat.com> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i think > this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429 > > -------- > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may lead, > go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri <mpusa...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc notes >> in, I don't see it as a problem. >> >> Matt P. >> >> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting for >>> Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern to my >>> knowledge. >>> >>> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david >>> pointed out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the >>> least invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us >>> feedback that the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I >>> agree with his observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future >>> proofed solution. I would argue that Option 2 is the "least invasive" in >>> the short term because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived >>> (ironically for the same reasons you noted.) >>> >>> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you >>> suggest any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about >>> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's >>> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd >>> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if >>> there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be >>> clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on >>> this.) >>> >>> -Robin >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring <bherr...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on >>>> Pulp3? >>>> >>>> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems >>>> strange to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and should >>>> be making minimal changes. >>>> >>>> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would >>>> have on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3, >>>> doesn't it make more sense to make those changes there when the product >>>> has yet to be launched? >>>> >>>> BRIAN HERRING >>>> >>>> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE >>>> >>>> Red Hat >>>> >>>> <https://www.redhat.com/> >>>> >>>> 100 East Davie Street >>>> >>>> Raleigh, NC, 27601 >>>> >>>> bherr...@redhat.com M: +19193238427 IM: bherring >>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom <ker...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause impacts >>>>> that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we will >>>>> spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less >>>>> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in >>>>>> addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the >>>>>> hyphen change. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with >>>>>> @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so >>>>>> I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the >>>>>> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names >>>>>> in >>>>>> pulp2 ourselves). >>>>>> >>>>>> --Dana >>>>>> >>>>>> Dana Walker >>>>>> >>>>>> Associate Software Engineer >>>>>> >>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to a >>>>>>> minimal version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp 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). >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
