On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:50 PM Mike DePaulo <mikedep...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:39 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> tl;dr I'm +1 to making this switch. >> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:51 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> Currently in pulp, syncs always create repository versions regardless of >>> whether or not any content changed. One of the tasks[0] for 3.0 GA is to >>> document this behavior. However, I've heard several complaints about this >>> from users so I wonder if it's worth reconsidering. >>> >> I love making users happy, but the complaints didn't resonate as much >> with me because another user with a different subjective preferences could >> walk up and complain after we switch it. I try to listen for user >> complaints that come with objective claims of usability. >> >> >>> Here are some reasons against always creating repo versions: >>> - They were meant to serve as a historical record but this information >>> is available by looking at the tasks api >>> - It creates additional, unnecessary versions and bumps the latest >>> version number of the repo >>> - If we ever have a feature to retain only the latest X repo versions, >>> it'll be less useful since some repo versions may not have any changes >>> >> This last bullet I see an objective reason to make no-content-change repo >> versions not increment. Users concerned about their cron jobs not running >> can check the task records. Users get RepositoryVersions that always >> include change and are therefore more meaningful (perhaps that was Bin Li's >> objective claim). Also future users could get a repo-version retention >> option which would be difficult to create if we don't switch this. >> > > From a black-box perspective, how about some sort of compromise solution? > Like a minor version number being bumped if there is a no-change sync. Or a > separate field like "1st identical repo version." > Whether we implement a compromise or not, this current proposal should be implemented 1st. +1 > > >> >> >>> Any thoughts? I'd like to get this on the sprint by Wednesday so it can >>> be changed before the dev freeze date of Nov 12. >>> >> +1 to making this change >> >>> >>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3308 >>> >>> David >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > -- > > Mike DePaulo > > He / Him / His > > Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp > > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> > > IM: mikedep333 > > GPG: 51745404 > <https://www.redhat.com/> > -- Mike DePaulo He / Him / His Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> IM: mikedep333 GPG: 51745404 <https://www.redhat.com/>
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
