After some discussion the proposal has been adjusted to leave publishers as-is and only introduce Master/Detail Publications with this change. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4678#note-6
Please provide more feedback as this likely will be work we try to include for rc2. On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:20 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > I wrote up the story on switching publications to Master/Detail and > removing publishers. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4678 > > Please read it through and ask questions. I believe adding it can be done > in a backwards compatible way so it's addition in maybe rc2 shouldn't be > disruptive. The disruptive part will be if Publishers get removed after > that (see last paragraph on ticket), but we could plan that removal for rc3 > perhaps and mark Publisher codepaths as deprecated in rc2. > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:38 AM Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The docker plugin is going to get rid of Publishers and Publications[0]. >> We are planning to update the DockerDistribution with a 'RepositoryVersion' >> field. If any other plugins want to do the same thing, we will need to make >> a change in pulpcore to the Distribution model. >> >> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4669 >> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:44 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Thank you for writing this out. The most significant issue I read in >>> this is that 3 of the 9 plugins are having their users take steps that >>> aren't adding any value in their workflow. They want to (and have an >>> opportunity to) take repository version content and expose it directly. >>> They don't need Publications or Publishers. If they need no metadata, >>> instead of a "pass-through" publication it would be easier to have a >>> Distribution refer to a RepositoryVersion directly and remove the >>> "pass-through" feature. They the user could skip this step ( >>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible#create-a-publication ) and instead >>> post the RepositoryVersion reference as part of the Distributor itself ( >>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible#create-a-distribution-for-the-publication >>> ). >>> >>> The second issue I read here is that having users CRUD a publisher and >>> then call that publisher is not as helpful/useful as CRUDing the resulting >>> Publication directly. One practical issue related to this is the saving of >>> the "publish" parameters. How do we store those over time? Our modeling >>> choices have made this a bit challenging because Publication's aren't >>> plugin controlled. A simple remedy is to have plugins provide various >>> Publication objects instead of Publishers. These Publications would be >>> managed by Master/Detail and when created it would run the task that >>> creates the Publication and return the 202. This simplifies Pulp in that >>> the options that were used to create the publication can be saved on the >>> Publication as provided by various plugins. It also allows users to take >>> one less step (they don't need to make a publisher to then make a >>> publication). Instead users that need metadata generated can do so with one >>> step, making the publication. So my main question is, can anyone remember >>> why we didn't use Master/Detail in this area originally? >>> >>> I believe these are changes we should explore. The top one is a pretty >>> simple add on and mostly not a breaking change. The bottom one would be a >>> larger change, but one that I believe we could make and should seriously >>> consider pre 3.0 GA. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:42 AM Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> TLDR: >>>> >>>> Auto-distribution of publications is performed implicitly instead of >>>> explicitly. >>>> Plugins that don't generate metadata during publish have to provide a >>>> generic publisher. >>>> Users have to keep track of publishers to make sure auto-distribution >>>> of new publications works. >>>> >>>> More background: >>>> >>>> Publishers in Pulp 3 serve three distinct functions: >>>> - store configuration for how a publication should be created >>>> - create publications using the configuration >>>> - update any distributions that are supposed to be auto updated with >>>> new publications of a repository (auto distribution). >>>> >>>> Ansible, Docker, and Maven plugins do not generate any metadata when >>>> creating a publication. So their publishers don't need to store any >>>> configuration. Users of these plugins only get two benefits from >>>> publishers: >>>> - create publications using the configuration >>>> - update any distributions that are supposed to be auto updated with >>>> new publications of a repository (auto distribution). >>>> >>>> The publications created by the publishers of these plugins could be >>>> created using a single generic publish task. So the only remaining benefit >>>> of a publisher for these plugins is the auto-distiribution that occurs when >>>> a Distribution has a repository and a pubisher configured. The only way >>>> this feature is documented right now is with the help text on the >>>> 'repository' and 'publisher' fields of Distributions. >>>> >>>> Does anyone else see these as problems with the Publishers? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
