Hi all, I could really use some quick feedback on how to model PulpImporters (ie do we want to use master/detail)?
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6329#note-1 Please respond tomorrow if you have any thoughts. Otherwise, ggainey and I will decide. Thanks. David On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:07 PM Grant Gainey <ggai...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hey folks - > > The import/export team has been having a discussion about naming. > Currently Pulp3 already has the concept Exporter. It's used for what I > think of as "pulp-to-human-user" usecases like "make this yum-repo > available from my webserver" and "use rsync to make this repository > available on a different system". It's important functionality, to be sure > - but the name collides with what we're designing right now. > > The export/import process we're working on, can be thought of as > "pulp-to-pulp" - no human end-user should be harmed during the exercise of > this function. And it really is "export data from instance Foo and import > it into instance Bar". However, we collide, repeatedly, on the collision > between the two meanings for Export - which says to me that users will > collide even harder and more often. > > The current Exporters are in tech-preview (I believe). What if we renamed > the current concept from 'Exporter' to 'Publisher'? One, that makes it > clearly not the same as the pulp-to-pulp import/export process. And two, I > feel like it matches what we're really going for with the > pulp-to-human-user case anyway. > > David assures me that the actual coding effort to do this rename would be > low. It's my opinion that the amount of confusion that would be prevented > makes the reward high. > > Anyone want to chime in? If nobody says anything, we're probably going to > do this - so get your objections in early and often! :) > > G > -- > Grant Gainey > Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
