+1 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone, > > We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on > the naming of the services. > > To summarize the thread, our options: > > - Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services > - didn't meet any support > - let's drop this option > - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2- > - got support from the majority > - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of > this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed and they > have > enough time to test it for pulp2 > - l see an agreement here, let's do it. > - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names > for Pulp3 services > - barely discussed > - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names > > Conclusion for Pulp2: everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2. Details > will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I misinterpreted > any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change the names in > pulp2. > > To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a > vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names. *Vote is open till Friday, > March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.* > Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not > (reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can > decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick. > The current ones are: > > - pulp-resource-manager > - pulp-worker > - pulp-content-app > > > I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3. > > Thank you, > Tanya > > > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha <bro...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> 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 <ehe...@redhat.com> 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 <ehe...@redhat.com> 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 < >>>> ttere...@redhat.com> 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 <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 >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> 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 >> 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
