I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2 as we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years :) also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.
But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern as we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix. pulpcore-resource-manager pulpcore-worker pulpcore-content-app On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the > confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The > problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only > differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3 > would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to > entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example: > > * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager, pulp-tasking-manager, > pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist > * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker, > pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling > > This option still requires developers and operates with both to remember > which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more obvious given > the complete naming difference than remembering which is the hyphen and > which is the underscore release. > > Let the bike shedding begin! > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 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 > -- Bruno Rocha Senior Quality Engineer - Red Hat - Pulp Project irc: rochacbruno “Progress is the realization of utopia.”
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
