[Pulp-dev] Proposal: Changing in 3.1 that Artifact.save() will hard-link/copy, not move

[Brian Bouterse]

We had two bugs filed recently [0][1] which suggest that when using the
default backend for Pulp, i.e. pulpcore.app.models.storage.FileSystem Pulp
should not be "moving" files. This is the default behavior Django gives us,
and it destroys data when sync'ed from file:/// for example [1].

I propose that with 3.1 we fix this bug by switching
pulpcore.app.models.storage.FileSystem
to leave files in place and either hard-link (same filesystem) or copy
(different filesystem).

This will require files to be cleaned up where before the were "moved" so
they didn't need cleanup. This will include worker temp directories,
uploaded files, uploaded files w/ the chunked API, and downloaded files
during sync. I believe this is all straightforward, but an important
side-effect of this change to identify. Plugin writers that manage files
would also need to handle this, but can mostly rely on pulpcore cleaning up
the worker temp directories and user-uploaded files.

What do you think about this? Do you have concerns? Is there something
better we can do?

[0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5870
[1]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5941

Thanks,
Brian
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Content Signing for Pulp 3.y -- Use Cases

[Dennis Kliban]

I've written 4 stories to start the implementation on the use cases we have
come up with so far. Do these accurately capture what was discussed?

[0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5943
[1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5944
[2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5945
[3] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5946

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 4:40 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:

> I've updated the document[0] with the meeting minutes from December 5. The
> full chat logs are here[1]. I would like to host another meeting at 9:30 AM
> EST (in your time zone
> )
> on Tuesday, December 10, 2019 (tomorrow). During this meeting we will focus
> on the details of the following 2 use cases:
>
>
>-
>
>As an administrator, I can use django-admin to add/remove a Signing
>Service.
>-
>
>As a REST API user (repo admin), I can assign a Signing Service to a
>repository and provide a key signature as additional configuration.
>
>
>
> [0]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HSrRduFYuidhbc8ISjUnkb3IXk6FnJ2iXEqa4vDC-pA/edit#
> [1]
> https://pulpadmin.fedorapeople.org/triage/pulp-meeting/2019/pulp-meeting.2019-12-05-14.00.log.html
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:44 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>
>> Thank you everyone who participated in the discussion earlier today. I
>> have moved the content to a google doc[0]. You can find the summary of
>> today's discussion below the use cases. The full log of the discussion is
>> here[1].
>>
>> I would like to continue the discussion at 9 AM EST (in your time zone
>> )
>> on Thursday, December 5, 2019 in #pulp-meeting on IRC. Your
>>
>> [0]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HSrRduFYuidhbc8ISjUnkb3IXk6FnJ2iXEqa4vDC-pA/edit#
>> [1]
>> https://pulpadmin.fedorapeople.org/triage/pulp-dev/2019/pulp-dev.2019-11-26-14.30.log.html
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:59 AM Dennis Kliban 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I will be hosting a chat meeting to discuss use cases for signing in
 Pulp 3.y.
 The meeting details and agenda link are below. Both users and plugin
 developers are invited. Please join if you're interested!

 When: Wednesday, November 26 9:30 – 10:30am EST or in your time zone
 
 .

>>>
>>> Correction: this will take place on Tuesday. The link is correct.
>>>
>>>
 Where: #pulp-dev on freenode
 Agenda: https://etherpad.net/p/Pulp_-_Signing_Use_Cases

 Questions and feedback are also welcome ahead of time.

 Thanks!

>>>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev