When I look at the all_task_dispatched ticket I see a feature; the TaskGroup not being in the plugin API I can see as a bug. If we release a feature I think it would need to be 3.4.0. This is inconvenient I know, but my concern is that if a feature gets released in Z stream even with good intentions, we put the semver commitment and transitively the trust of our users at risk. I agree completely that these changes must be released and soon.
What about dis-including all_task_dispatched from a 3.3.1? I believe @daviddavis identified this gap and it was theoretical**. Katello could workaround by polling any migration a bit longer even when it shows completed. This would give many benefits: we can stay true to semver, katello can use the workaround to poll linger, and a low-risk 3.3.1 would be created without requiring everything to release for compatibility reasons. What do others think about this approach? To unpack my mental model for this classification into feature versus bug, I try to determine if there is a claim of usability already present. If there is, then it's a bug; if there isn't then it's a feature. **: I don't mean this negatively. It's only an observation that it has not been experienced in practice On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:07 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 for 3.3.1 > > Could those be included? > 1. Adding TaskGroup to the plugin API > https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/677 > 2. Adding all_task_dispatched field to indicate that no more tasks will > spawn https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/682 > > They may sound like features/improvements however, without both, task > groups are close to unusable. > Katello integrates with pulpcore 3.3 and migration plugin which uses task > groups. > Migration plugin can workaround the first problem by importing directly > from the pulpcore. > Without #2, there is no way to know whether all tasks have been dispatched > or not, it means no way to know the overall state of the migration. > > To my knowledge, task groups are used by import/export (which is in tech > preview) and by the migration plugin. So those PRs seem to me like a > low-risk change. > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks, > Tanya > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:41 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I think Katello would like a few of the bug fixes from the past couple >> weeks. Would a 3.3.1 release make sense? Would anyone have time this week >> to work on it? >> >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
