[Pulp-list] which pulp repository to use
Hello, can i deploy 2.4.1 available in 2.4 Beta repository for my production pulp deployment ? i think 2.4.1 has some bugs resolved.. which one i should use ? Regards, DJ ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
Re: [Pulp-list] which pulp repository to use
To me, it's a personal choice based on how comfortable you are with running code that is new and has not been fully tested. The term "beta" to the Pulp development team means that it is feature complete, testing has not finished yet. If you need to run code that has been fully tested then you should choose a stable release (2.4.0). I recommend reading the release notes for 2.4.1 [0] and the list of bugs fixed [1] to see if you are interested in the the differences between 2.4.0 and 2.4.1. The Pulp dev team is trying to release more often so that the choice between bugfixes/features and stability is less difficult. [0]: https://pulp-user-guide.readthedocs.org/en/2.4-release/release-notes/2.4.x.html#pulp-2-4-1 [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=CLOSED&classification=Community&component=API%2Fintegration&component=async%2Ftasks&component=consumers&component=documentation&component=nodes&component=rel-eng&component=user-experience&component=z_other&list_id=2864122&product=Pulp&query_format=advanced&target_release=2.4.1 Best, Brian - Original Message - > From: "joshi dhaval" > To: pulp-list@redhat.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:05:36 PM > Subject: [Pulp-list] which pulp repository to use > > Hello, > > can i deploy 2.4.1 available in 2.4 Beta repository for my production pulp > deployment ? > > i think 2.4.1 has some bugs resolved.. which one i should use ? > > Regards, > DJ > > ___ > Pulp-list mailing list > Pulp-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list > ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
[Pulp-list] Is there any plan for audit activity ?
Hello, I am looking for audit activity on package Upload, deploy, remove by particular user, which should report which user did package installation or removed or uploaded to repository. i checked database, i did not find any activity information there as well. Regards, DJ ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
Re: [Pulp-list] which pulp repository to use
On 09/23/2014 01:05 PM, joshi dhaval wrote: > can i deploy 2.4.1 available in 2.4 Beta repository for my production pulp > deployment ? > > i think 2.4.1 has some bugs resolved.. which one i should use ? If you can wait about 5 minutes, I'm about to deploy 2.4.1-1 to our stable repository! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
Re: [Pulp-list] [devel] pulp-2.4 has been deleted from the pulp_puppet repo
On 09/22/2014 04:38 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > I have deleted the scary pulp-2.4 branch from the pulp_puppet repo. You > should delete your local copies of that branch too: > > (pulp_puppet)[rbarlow@notepad]~/devel/pulp_puppet% git branch -d pulp-2.4 > Deleted branch pulp-2.4 (was dcc8ef9). > > We aren't completely sure what the consequences for the Read the Docs > builders is yet, so we are going to wait and see what happens before > doing the same for our other repositories. I have now deleted the pulp-2.4 branches from the pulp and pulp_rpm repositories as well. Please delete your local copies! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
[Pulp-list] 2.4.1-1 released!
The Pulp team is pleased to announce that we have release Pulp-2.4.1-1 to our stable repositories. This is a minor bugfix release. Please see the release notes[0][1][2] if you are interested in reading about the fixes that are included. Happy upgrading! [0] https://pulp-user-guide.readthedocs.org/en/2.4-release/release-notes/2.4.x.html [1] https://pulp-puppet-user-guide.readthedocs.org/en/2.4-release/ [2] https://pulp-rpm-user-guide.readthedocs.org/en/2.4-release/release-notes/2.4.x.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
Re: [Pulp-list] Is there any plan for audit activity ?
On 09/23/2014 01:24 PM, joshi dhaval wrote: > I am looking for audit activity on package Upload, deploy, remove by > particular user, which should report which user did package installation or > removed or uploaded to repository. Hi! We do have an RFE filed for this, but we do not currently have this feature. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099585 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
[Pulp-list] Is master going to be 2.6 or 3.0 (an API change question)?
I have a PR that introduces a small API change [0]. It renames a Task Report attribute from 'queue' to 'worker_name'. It's a small change in the API that no one should care about because there are no use cases I can think of that involve using the info from this field. I propose that it be included in the next Y release (2.6). The PR documents it in the release notes and updates the Task Report docs also. Are Pulp developers/community OK with the introducing a small backwards compatible change on 2.6? If so, do we feel that master should be for 2.6? As an alternative, master could be for Pulp 3.0, and then we'll need to make a 2.6-dev branch for the next Y release. What do you think? -Brian [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/1172 ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
Re: [Pulp-list] Is master going to be 2.6 or 3.0 (an API change question)?
You could have the web handler copy the attribute "worker_name" to "queue", so the API returns both. Then mark "queue" as deprecated in the documentation. That would let us comfortably release this as part of a 2.6 or 3.0. Would that cover all public-API use cases? Or does that data get exposed through other APIs also besides just this? https://pulp-dev-guide.readthedocs.org/en/pulp-2.4/integration/rest-api/dispatch/task.html Michael - Original Message - From: "Brian Bouterse" To: pulp-list@redhat.com Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:06:46 PM Subject: [Pulp-list] Is master going to be 2.6 or 3.0 (an API change question)? I have a PR that introduces a small API change [0]. It renames a Task Report attribute from 'queue' to 'worker_name'. It's a small change in the API that no one should care about because there are no use cases I can think of that involve using the info from this field. I propose that it be included in the next Y release (2.6). The PR documents it in the release notes and updates the Task Report docs also. Are Pulp developers/community OK with the introducing a small backwards compatible change on 2.6? If so, do we feel that master should be for 2.6? As an alternative, master could be for Pulp 3.0, and then we'll need to make a 2.6-dev branch for the next Y release. What do you think? -Brian [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/1172 ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
Re: [Pulp-list] Is master going to be 2.6 or 3.0 (an API change question)?
On 09/23/2014 03:00 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > You could have the web handler copy the attribute "worker_name" to "queue", > so the API returns both. Then mark "queue" as deprecated in the > documentation. That would let us comfortably release this as part of a 2.6 or > 3.0. This is a fantastic suggestion! > Would that cover all public-API use cases? Or does that data get exposed > through other APIs also besides just this? > https://pulp-dev-guide.readthedocs.org/en/pulp-2.4/integration/rest-api/dispatch/task.html The only other case I can think of that is technically public is our bindings, but we could do the same thing there (make sure it's available through both attributes). How does that sound to you Brian? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
Re: [Pulp-list] Is master going to be 2.6 or 3.0 (an API change question)?
tl;dr that sounds great, but we should still have master be Pulp 3.0 and introduce a new branch (2.6-dev) be for 2.6 changes. Great idea Michael! Having an additive duplication of that attribute data at the bindings and API layers would make it reverse compatible so we could release it as part of almost any release. Even a Z release since it is literally be 100% bugfix. I'll make these changes after I resolve BZ 1142881. Duplicating data is not something we want to leave lying around to get forgotten and become part of Pulp long-term. We could track the removal of it with a BZ, but then if we don't pick that specific BZ as part of a release then we'll miss the opportunity at the next X release of Pulp. Using the target release field could help us remember this, but what if we could do it all at once? As a general problem, we will likely start some of the feature work for a given X release well before it is released, and if master isn't reserved for the "next X release" (3.0) then we have no place to put that work. I believe we need that flexibility. If we have master be 3.0 and we introduce a dev branch for "the next Y release" (ie: 2.6-dev) I could duplicate attribute on 2.6-dev and at the same time, remove the duplication from master, and write the release note. All the work could be done at once and it would be more efficient than re-opening the work later. Also a BZ could be made for the deprecation of the 3.0 deprecation of the 'queue' attribute on TaskStatus so that QA could verify it. Once the PR changes for 3.0 are committed we could move that BZ to MODIFIED. Any thoughts on the decision to make master 3.0 and creating a 2.6-dev branch? Thanks, Brian - Original Message - > From: "Randy Barlow" > To: pulp-list@redhat.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:48:29 PM > Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Is master going to be 2.6 or 3.0 (an API change > question)? > > On 09/23/2014 03:00 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > > You could have the web handler copy the attribute "worker_name" to "queue", > > so the API returns both. Then mark "queue" as deprecated in the > > documentation. That would let us comfortably release this as part of a 2.6 > > or 3.0. > > This is a fantastic suggestion! > > > Would that cover all public-API use cases? Or does that data get exposed > > through other APIs also besides just this? > > https://pulp-dev-guide.readthedocs.org/en/pulp-2.4/integration/rest-api/dispatch/task.html > > The only other case I can think of that is technically public is our > bindings, but we could do the same thing there (make sure it's available > through both attributes). > > How does that sound to you Brian? > > > ___ > Pulp-list mailing list > Pulp-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
