Hi All, I figure I'll weigh in with my 2ยข.
I did initially like the idea of keeping repositories that allow package upload separate from repositories with feeds. This is mighty tempting given its simplicity. However, after reading all the arguments, Mike, Jeff, and John have had some really good points. If we do not treat feeds as authoritative, and as simply a batch source for packages, I think this introduces much greater flexibility in the pulp management model than we had before. I think I'd like to see us adopt this non-authoritative view. We should: * allow a repository to define more than one feed * allow package upload to all repositories * allow admin to pull content from one or more of the defined feeds * should probably change the semantics of 'sync' to 'pull' (or something similar) I like this model because it's actually a super-set of the functionality we now offer and doesn't (theoretically) sound like it's a prohibitive amount of work to get it going. -- Jason L Connor Software Engineer Systems Management and Cloud Enablement Red Hat, Inc. +1.919.890.8331 RHCT #605010081634021 Freenode: linear
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
