Re: [Pulp-dev] Importer Name

Austin and Jeff, Thanks for the responses. I am happy with moving forward and opening an issue in redmine for this change I think I am +0 on dropping the fields. However, if we start to get complaints from our users, I think we should consider adding them back. David On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10

Re: [Pulp-dev] Plugin relationship to tasks

I spoke with daviddavis about this and I would like to narrow the scope a bit. This discussion should be limited to endpoints that deploy tasks. The possibility for collisions that David pointed out regarding v3/content// is real, but should be discussed separately because Content objects should fo

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.16.0 dev freeze -- 22:00 UTC Tuesday, March 13th

On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 15:53 -0400, Brian Bouterse wrote: > Here is one final feature that was added as a dev-freeze exception through > discussion with rpm plugin devs and @pcreech: > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3444 It is merged, tested, and ready to go. > > @pcreech can you ack when pulp/pul

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.16.0 dev freeze -- 22:00 UTC Tuesday, March 13th

Mihai, I believe your changes made it into 2.16.0. On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Mihai Ibanescu wrote: > Does that mean that https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1093 did not > make the cut? > > I think it would be a shame for that to be pushed to 2.17. But I'm biased > since it's my code :-

Re: [Pulp-dev] Removing a few sprint items?

I should clarify tha my main concern with regards to #2921 is to have *any* code in place that configures web serves for Pulp 3. Publicising it is a nice thing too, but at this point in time, my target audience is developers and QE. On a related note, references to Ansible were dropped from the Pul

Re: [Pulp-dev] Removing a few sprint items?

QE wants #2921 to be done. We consider testing with a full production-quality stack to be very important. I'm happy to do the work, because: - My understanding is that the dev team is currently fully committed to other things. - Working on adding web server support into the Ansible code i

Re: [Pulp-dev] Removing a few sprint items?

No objection to removing #2988, #2325 but #2921 was added because it was needed by QE and they volunteered to do the work. On 03/14/2018 11:03 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I didn't get a chance until now to look at the sprint 34 items in a detailed way. I want us to consider removing three of the

Re: [Pulp-dev] Removing a few sprint items?

Thank you both for the feedback. I share the concern that we may run out of NEW items. I added a monday meeting agenda item for us to check-in on if additional work needs to be added then. I'm wanting to defer adding more today with the hope that sprint 34 will get to 100% modified and will have no

Re: [Pulp-dev] Plugin relationship to tasks

I have an amendment to this proposal. Instead of namespacing just the plugin task routes, I’d propose we namespace all plugin routes. Thus all plugin routes would be namespaced under something like “/api/v3/plugin//“. For example, “/api/v3/content/file/” gets moved to “/api/v3/plugin/file/content/”

Re: [Pulp-dev] Removing a few sprint items?

I just want to point out that we only have 4 NEW non-plugin issues on the sprint and 2 weeks left. If we remove these three issues, then we’ll only have 2 pulpcore issues left. I’m not opposed to removing these issues but we should maybe consider adding a few. David On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 7:19

Re: [Pulp-dev] Removing a few sprint items?

#2988 was automatically moved to srpint 34 because it was in assigned state and the assignee was not present on the planning so we moved it forward and let the decision up to the assignee whether to continue to work on this or drop form the sprint. Since you're just unassigned it i think we can dro

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.16.0 dev freeze -- 22:00 UTC Tuesday, March 13th

Does that mean that https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1093 did not make the cut? I think it would be a shame for that to be pushed to 2.17. But I'm biased since it's my code :-) On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > The code for 2.16.0 is now frozen. There are a tot

Re: [Pulp-dev] Importer Name

In pulp3, users need to keep track for a number of things.  For example, without auto publish, users need to keep track of which importer(s) and publishers need to be used for sync/publish workflows.  I fully expect that users using the API will be maintaining some kind of automation/orchestrat

[Pulp-dev] Removing a few sprint items?

I didn't get a chance until now to look at the sprint 34 items in a detailed way. I want us to consider removing three of them from the sprint. The reasoning is that these areas of work are not part of the pulp3 core beta deliverables. Exception when raising a user-Defined Exception that has a cus

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.16.0 dev freeze -- 22:00 UTC Tuesday, March 13th

Here is one final feature that was added as a dev-freeze exception through discussion with rpm plugin devs and @pcreech: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/ 3444 It is merged, tested, and ready to go. @pcreech can you ack when pulp/pulp_rpm:2.16-release is rebased? The query now contains 10 items: ht

Re: [Pulp-dev] Plugin relationship to tasks

I reviewed this proposal with Austin, mainly from the perspective of an end user. In my opinion, this proposal is a good one. I find the semantics intuitive and I think they do a good job of adhering to the Richardson Maturity Model