All: Replied on a different list.
Thanks! BRIAN HERRING QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> 100 East Davie Street Raleigh, NC, 27601 [email protected] M: +19193238427 IM: bherring <https://red.ht/sig> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:51 AM Eric Helms <[email protected]> wrote: > My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future > without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and > keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+. > > As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a > Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as > possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal > impact. > > is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2? > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] M: +19193238427 IM: bherring >>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
