+1 to option 2. David
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM Daniel Alley <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
