[Pulp-list] 2.9 branch at freeze?
Traditionally, we've created the x.y-dev branch after the corresponding pulp version is released. I was thinking it would be good to create that branch at the freeze point (pretty much right now) rather than waiting. Open PRs against master would have to be dealt with specially, but I think we can avoid mass-closing PRs with some git-merge-fu, since presumably anything already POSTed can be manually merged backward cleanly to the new dev branch, and then merged forward normally to close the PR. I'm happy to help with this if we do go ahead and create the dev branch now. So, is it branch time? 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] 2.9 branch at freeze?
There's no harm in doing it now, except the slight extra merge work that needs to happen as you pointed out. That said, I'm not sure we have much to gain by doing it now. Technically we don't need to make the branch until someone is ready to commit something that is in 2.10. Hopefully that will happen in the next 2-3 weeks. So I don't think it makes a lot of difference. If it was me, I'd probably wait a few days so we can reduce the backlog of unmerged PRs, but that's a minor consideration. If you're itching to get it done, I don't see a reason not to. Michael On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Sean Myers wrote: > Traditionally, we've created the x.y-dev branch after the corresponding > pulp version is released. I was thinking it would be good to create that > branch at the freeze point (pretty much right now) rather than waiting. > > Open PRs against master would have to be dealt with specially, but I think > we can avoid mass-closing PRs with some git-merge-fu, since presumably > anything > already POSTed can be manually merged backward cleanly to the new dev > branch, > and then merged forward normally to close the PR. I'm happy to help with > this > if we do go ahead and create the dev branch now. > > So, is it branch time? > > > ___ > 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 an ability to do a "resync"
Katello is seeing a bunch of edge cases which would be nice to close with a "just redo the sync". Does this api exist in pulp today? I am, expecing something akin to a --force flag (paramater) -- bk ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
[Pulp-list] problem scripting package search using --filters
Hi Folks,
I've been pondering this for a while but I'm stumped. I've been working on
a script that will let users search for a package across many repos at
once. The problem is that I can only get past pulp-admin validation when
scripting the search if I basically echo the search into a new bash.
I've tried just about every silly iteration of escapes and whatnot, but
unless I echo it out to a new bash, I get "Validation failed for argument
[--filters]: No JSON object could be decoded".
The reason for all the hoops is that I need the following to work ($1 being
a search regex given when running the script as arg 1:
--filter '{"name":{"$regex":"$1","$options":"i"}}'
Anyhow, here is the script in it's current (ugly) form, which works:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/375944/65321343/
And here is what the section should be able to look like if it weren't
getting hung up on the JSON validation:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/375945/32158214/
I want to overcome the silly trick w/ echoing into a new bash before I go
any farther down the rabbit hole with returning custom fields and
parallelizing the searches.
Any ideas?
Thanks!
- Kodiak Firesmith
___
Pulp-list mailing list
Pulp-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
[Pulp-list] Anyone else working on pulp backup scripts?
Right now the only documented advice (that I know of, at least) on how to back up Pulp comes from the Katello/Foreman docs* and basically entails creating a big tarball nightly which is slow, inefficient, and unrealistic IMO. To address this for my infrastructure, I've been working on a script that does a hot mongo backup and uses LVM snapshots that are later hoovered up by our enterprise backup system. My method results in very little downtime but I'm still working through a couple finicky things. I'd like to generalize the script for public consumption but due to where I work the release review process to publish "code" (har har) is pretty arduous. I'm at the outset of the process now but I don't have an ETA for being able to release. Because of the challenges I have ahead w/r/t releasing my script, I wanted to check in with the rest of the community and see if anyone else has the same intentions - perhaps even someone who codes at a 5th grade level and could blow my work out of the water ;) I'm going to keep plodding along with the release review process with the intention of getting my script accepted into the Pulp project "/playpen" area, but I'd love to see what other folks are doing, and if there are more elegant solutions that could be contributed which could replace what I'm working on, all the better. * https://fedorahosted.org/katello/wiki/GuideServerBackups - Kodiak ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
Re: [Pulp-list] Is there an ability to do a "resync"
We discussed that just this morning, and here's the resulting story: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/1982 Michael On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Bryan Kearney wrote: > Katello is seeing a bunch of edge cases which would be nice to close with > a "just redo the sync". Does this api exist in pulp today? I am, expecing > something akin to a --force flag (paramater) > > -- bk > > ___ > 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
