+1 to keep current pulp3 service names +1 to rename pulp2 service names Thank you for putting this email together, very clear and straight to the point!
ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 19:13 David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com>: > +1 to option 2. > > David > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> +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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
