Re: [Pulp-dev] Partially constructed data in the DB

Defining the field's behaivor a bit more could help us with the name. Will it actually be shown to the user in viewsets and filter results? I think the answer should be no, not until it's fully finished. I can't think of a reason why a user would want to see inconsistent content during a sync or

Re: [Pulp-dev] Partially constructed data in the DB

Thanks for answering my questions. I agree on not using an “is_” prefix and avoiding “visible.” Your suggestion of “valid” sounds fine. Maybe some other options: finished, complete[d], ready. David On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > > > On 12/13/2017

Re: [Pulp-dev] Tasking System Improvement

I read through the story and it looks good to me. I marked it as groomed. On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > Recently @ttereshc brought up a tasking system improvement while > investigating a user reported issue. I think it's something we want to get >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Partially constructed data in the DB

On 12/13/2017 12:46 PM, David Davis wrote: A few questions. First, what is meant by incomplete? I’m assuming it refers to a version in the process of being created or one that was not successfully created? Both. Also, what’s the motivation behind storing this information? Is there

[Pulp-dev] Partially constructed data in the DB

There has been discussion on IRC about a matter related to versioned repositories that needs to be broadened.  It dealt with situations whereby a new repository version exists in the DB in an incomplete state.  The incomplete state exists because conceptually a repository version includes both

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3: using JWT to request a JWT

+1 David On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > +1 to this > > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Alley wrote: > >> - close issues 3163 and 3164 >>> - move JWT auth use cases from the MVP document[2] to the 3.1+ >>>

Re: [Pulp-dev] Voting for PUP 4: Code of Conduct

+1 On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Ina Panova wrote: > +1 > > > > > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may lead, > go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:32

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3: using JWT to request a JWT

+1 to this On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Alley wrote: > - close issues 3163 and 3164 >> - move JWT auth use cases from the MVP document[2] to the 3.1+ >> document[3]. >> - add a story for removing "djangorestframework-jwt" from pulp 3.0 > > > s/story/task, and >

[Pulp-dev] Crane redirects - internal and external content

Hi, In our current setup, we have a purely internal pulp deployment, that publishes to an NFS share. HTTP frontend machines handle the cert-based authn/authz and serve the content from the NFS share. We have an internal set of HTTP frontend machines, and an internal customer has access to

Re: [Pulp-dev] Deferring 3 things for Pulp3 to 3.1+

+1 On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Bihan Zhang wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On 12/12/2017 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: >> >> As we get to the end of the MVP planning for Pulp3, I want to check-in

Re: [Pulp-dev] Deferring 3 things for Pulp3 to 3.1+

+1 On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > +1 > > On 12/12/2017 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > > As we get to the end of the MVP planning for Pulp3, I want to check-in > about deferring 3 areas of Pulp functionality to the 3.1+ page [0]. I'm > looking for

Re: [Pulp-dev] Deferring 3 things for Pulp3 to 3.1+

+1 On 12/12/2017 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: As we get to the end of the MVP planning for Pulp3, I want to check-in about deferring 3 areas of Pulp functionality to the 3.1+ page [0]. I'm looking for feedback, especially -1s, about deferring the following 3 things from the Pulp 3.0

Re: [Pulp-dev] Deferring 3 things for Pulp3 to 3.1+

+1 here too On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 8:28 AM, David Davis wrote: > I think this makes sense. +1 from me. > > > David > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> As we get to the end of the MVP planning for Pulp3, I want to

Re: [Pulp-dev] Deferring 3 things for Pulp3 to 3.1+

I think this makes sense. +1 from me. David On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > As we get to the end of the MVP planning for Pulp3, I want to check-in > about deferring 3 areas of Pulp functionality to the 3.1+ page [0]. I'm > looking for feedback,