On 09/09/2014 07:48 AM, Ivan Necas wrote: > 1. setting up the dev-setup might be quite frustrating, especially > for non-python developers. (maybe you think it's just ok, but trust me, > it's not:)
I couldn't agree more. I've always found our development environment to be far too complex and to require unreasonable permissions. It's better now than it was two years ago, but it's still not very good. My goal is to be able to develop Pulp entirely inside a virtualenv, without having to deploy anything across my system. FWIW, I recommend developing Pulp inside virtual machines since the pulp-dev script will spew files all over your FS, and since you have to disable selinux to develop. > 2. the production-related issues are being postponed to later development > stages, which leads to instabilities being discovered too late as well. Can you be more specific about this? I'm having trouble following what you mean. > Are there any plans for enhancing the situation: I would be more than happy > with automated builds every night based on master branch. I also believe that > this could help with better stability of pulp as well as the projects that > build on top of it. We have talked about automated builds, and jcline has been working on automating testing which I think will complement automated builds nicely.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
