Re: [Pulp-dev] Performance testing results, autoincrement ID vs UUID primary keys

+1 to switching back to UUIDs for the reasons Brian gave. On 3/1/19 2:23 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I've finally gotten to read through the numbers and this thread. It is a tradeoff but I am +1 for switching to UUIDs. I focus on the PostgreSQL UUID vs int case because that is our default databas

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2.18.1 GA (delayed)

An additional packaging adjustment to deal with Celery (and related) dependencies provided by EPEL.  As a result, the 2.18.1 GA is now scheduled for Feb 22. https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/2181_Release_Schedule On 2/14/19 12:32 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: To ensure that Pulp packaging

[Pulp-dev] Pulp 2.18.1 GA (delayed)

To ensure that Pulp packaging adjustments related to dependencies (celery) provided by EPEL can be completed and tested, the GA date needs to be pushed. The GA is now scheduled for February 20. https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/2181_Release_Schedule _

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore-plugin 0.1.0b20

The following packages are now available on PyPI:    - pulpcore-plugin 0.1.0b20 [1] with its release notes here [2] Note: The management of remote artifacts has been pulled out of the ContentSaver stage and is now provided by a /new/ RemoteArtifactSaver stage.   Plugins creating custom

[Pulp-dev] 2.18.1 Beta 1 available

Pulp 2.18.1 Beta 1 is now available, and can be downloaded from the 2.18 beta repositories: https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/pulp/pulp/beta/2.18/ Upgrading = The Pulp 2.18 beta repository is included in the pulp repo files: https://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/pulp/pulp/fedora-pulp

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.18.1 Release Schedule

Still working to get an outstanding issue verified.  The beta needs to slip (1) additional day.  See the updated schedule[0]. On 2/5/19 5:17 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: An issue found during 2.18.1 testing as not yet been completely resolved/verified.  As of now, we need to slip (1) additional day

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.18.1 Release Schedule

An issue found during 2.18.1 testing as not yet been completely resolved/verified.  As of now, we need to slip (1) additional day. On 1/29/19 2:41 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: Testing on 2.18.1 has found a few issues.  As a result, the schedule has slipped ~1 week. On 1/16/19 10:28 AM, Jeff Ortel

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.18.1 Release Schedule

Testing on 2.18.1 has found a few issues.  As a result, the schedule has slipped ~1 week. On 1/16/19 10:28 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote: A 2.18.1 is being planned with some features and recent fixes. Here [0] is a release schedule page which outlines the dates, starting with a dev freeze on January

[Pulp-dev] 2.18.1 Dev Freeze

The code for 2.18.1 is now frozen. There are a total of 6 issues prepared for the release: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=123 On 1/21/19 1:54 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: Any Pulp2 core or plugin code that you want included in the 2.18.1 release must be: - Merged to master by 22:00 UTC

Re: [Pulp-dev] Removing pulp/relational-pulp from Pulp org on Jan 22nd

+1, delete. On 1/17/19 12:44 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: This repo [0] was an early-on repo design of Master/Detail which has been moved into the Pulp3 codebase for several years now. Now github identified several issues in it via static analysis and we're getting email notification about fixing

[Pulp-dev] Reminder: 2.18.1 Dev Freeze Today.

Any Pulp2 core or plugin code that you want included in the 2.18.1 release must be: - Merged to master by 22:00 UTC, Today. - Be associated with a bugfix issue. stories, refactors, and tasks are not included in z-stream releases. Thanks! ___ Pulp-d

[Pulp-dev] 2.18.1 Release Schedule

A 2.18.1 is being planned with some features and recent fixes. Here [0] is a release schedule page which outlines the dates, starting with a dev freeze on January 21, 2019 @ 22:00 UTC. If this schedule needs to be adjusted, please reply with alternate dates. [0] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/p

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

On 1/9/19 11:30 AM, Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: To summarize where we are so far: *All* master/detail related endpoints will be automatically prepended with Django app *label* [0]     - concerns: 'pulp_' in the label     - options to address concerns: * introduce a new attribute to t

Re: [Pulp-dev] Concerns about bulk_create and PostgreSQL

On 1/3/19 1:28 PM, Simon Baatz wrote: On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 01:02:57PM -0500, David Davis wrote: I don't think that using integer ids with bulk_create and supporting mysql/mariadb are necessarily mutually exclusive. I think there might be a way to find the records created using

Re: [Pulp-dev] Single-Table Content API Changes, Performance Discussion

On 12/10/18 1:06 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: +1 to counts instead of URLs.  The URLs are documented and can be constructed to listing them on the serialized version does not seem to add much value.  The counts would likely provide more useful information and consistent with the summary counts

Re: [Pulp-dev] Single-Table Content API Changes, Performance Discussion

+1 to counts instead of URLs.  The URLs are documented and can be constructed to listing them on the serialized version does not seem to add much value.  The counts would likely provide more useful information and consistent with the summary counts. On 12/7/18 1:30 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: Wha

Re: [Pulp-dev] Possible Pulp3 RC Blocker issues from backlog

Decisions look good to me. On 12/5/18 11:36 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I commented on the jwt one that I think it can be closed and why: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248#note-6 On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:54 AM David Davis > wrote: Awesome, thanks! David

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal to remove 'notes' fields from the Pulp 3 RC

no objection On 12/3/18 10:32 PM, Daniel Alley wrote: *Background:* "Notes" are a generic key value store where data can be attached to repositories and content and publications and so forth.  The eventual plan is to use this to enable adding tags to those sorts of objects, which is importan

Re: [Pulp-dev] Distributing Pulp3 Plans

+1 On 12/1/18 6:01 AM, David Davis wrote: +1 from me. David On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM Dennis Kliban > wrote: No objections from me. On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:50 AM Brian Bouterse mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote: The plan about 12-24

[Pulp-dev] Proposal: merge the content-app & streamer

_BACKGROUND_ The pulp3 content app and the streamer (in-progress) currently have a lot of duplicate code and functionality.  At the very least, I think there is a opportunity to refactor both and share code.  But, this would leave us with two components with significant overlap in functionalit

Re: [Pulp-dev] Auto-distribution

On 11/27/18 11:45 PM, James Cassell wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: On 11/27/18 3:20 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: On 11/27/18 8:29 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: Yes, and AFAIK this is already complete. There are 2 fields on the Distribution that allow auto-distribution

Re: [Pulp-dev] Auto-distribution

On 11/27/18 3:20 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: On 11/27/18 8:29 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: Yes, and AFAIK this is already complete. There are 2 fields on the Distribution that allow auto-distribution. These fields must both be set, and when they are, new publications will automatically update

Re: [Pulp-dev] Auto-distribution

On 11/27/18 8:29 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: Yes, and AFAIK this is already complete. There are 2 fields on the Distribution that allow auto-distribution. These fields must both be set, and when they are, new publications will automatically update the distribution. The Auto-distribution fea

[Pulp-dev] SSL/OID content-guard

To support content protection using an X.509 certificate containing OID extensions a concrete ContentGuard needs to be developed.  The question is, in which plugin does this belong?  Issue #4009 suggests the RPM plugin.  I'm not convinced that this is specific only to protecting RPMs.  Is it?

Re: [Pulp-dev] Single-Table Content API Changes, Performance Discussion

On 11/20/18 11:31 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:20 PM Daniel Alley > wrote: Some of the API changes that are required by single-table-content would be beneficial even if we didn't go forwards with the modelling changes. For instance,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Basic Lazy Streaming for Pulp3 Ready for Rough Testing

The initial planning for lazy omitted content protection for 3.0. Since then, we have pulled content protection back into 3.0 re: content-guards.  In pulp2, the content app redirected using a signed-url so that clients could not circumvent content protection. Currently in 3.0, there is nothing

Re: [Pulp-dev] To integrate Fus or not to....

On 10/12/2018 11:37 AM, Milan Kovacik wrote: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:17 PM Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 10/12/2018 09:53 AM, Milan Kovacik wrote: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:59 PM Jeff Ortel mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 1

Re: [Pulp-dev] To integrate Fus or not to....

On 10/12/2018 09:53 AM, Milan Kovacik wrote: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:59 PM Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 10/10/2018 08:59 AM, Milan Kovacik wrote: ...that might be the question we should ask ourselves once again when it comes to recursive c

[Pulp-dev] content guards

I'd like to get broader input on #3968 from comment: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3968#note-14 on. I don't think this falls within the classic discussion of thin/fat models.  Mainly because the methods included in what is considered a /fat/ model by django are still confined within the concerns

Re: [Pulp-dev] To integrate Fus or not to....

On 10/10/2018 08:59 AM, Milan Kovacik wrote: ...that might be the question we should ask ourselves once again when it comes to recursive copying of units between repositories. I'd like to poll folks opinions about the possibilities that we may have when it comes to integrating third party so

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changeset code in Pulp 3

Looks like we're fully invested in stages.  I don't think it makes sense to maintain both.  We can always resurrect it later (in some form) as needed. On 10/10/2018 01:17 PM, David Davis wrote: As part of the upcoming RC release, there was a question as to whether the Changeset code could  rem

[Pulp-dev] URL Word Separators

What is the project policy on word separators in URLs? My take on 3 most common options: 1. The words run together - is hard to read. Example: /contentguard/ 2. Hyphens in URLs are easy to type and read.  Most common and recommended based on my limited search.  Example: /content-guard/ 3. Under

[Pulp-dev] Triage of #3915

Issue 3915 has been skipped several times during triage with a request for discussion on the issue.  I feel this issue identifies a serious concern.  Investigating has also raised questions about our approach to supporting bulk_create() of Artifact. Please review and comment before the next tr

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal to drop support of Python 3.5 for Pulp 3

+1 On 09/07/2018 01:09 AM, Simon Baatz wrote: I had a discussion on IRC with Brian yesterday which led to the question whether we can drop support for Python 3.5. I think there are good reasons for this, see the rationale below. Brian proposed to initiate a vote on this topic (and find out whet

[Pulp-dev] Settings merge proposal.

This issue[1] highlighted a shortcoming in how server.yaml is applied to the settings.py.  Mainly that the marge algorithm does not support removing unwanted properties such as the logging handlers.  The change proposed on #3879 is to replace entire top-level properties (trees) instead of the f

Re: [Pulp-dev] Requiring 2FA in Github

+1 On 08/15/2018 01:10 PM, David Davis wrote: Thanks everyone for the feedback. I have opened a PR for PUP-7 which (if approved) will require 2FA for the Pulp organization in Github: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/14 Feedback welcome. Also, I'd like to call for a vote by August 27, 2018.

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

On 08/07/2018 11:47 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote: After long consideration, I have had a change of heart about this.  I think.  In short, Pulp's data model has unique requirements that make it acceptable to deviate from common convention regarding ID as the PK.  Mainly that the schema is exten

Re: [Pulp-dev] Revisit: sync modes

n Kovacik mailto:mkova...@redhat.com>> wrote: On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Jeff Ortel mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: I'm not convinced that /named/ sync mode is a good approach.  I doubt it will ever be anything besides (additive

[Pulp-dev] Revisit: sync modes

I'm not convinced that /named/ sync mode is a good approach. I doubt it will ever be anything besides (additive|mirror) which really boils down to mirror (or not).  Perhaps the reasoning behind a /named/ mode is that it is potentially more extensible in that the API won't be impacted when a new

[Pulp-dev] Installing RQ

It has been my experience that /usr/bin/rq is only installed by 'pip install rq' and it's not installed by 'pip3 install rq'. The only work around I have found is to: 1. pip install rq 2. pip3 install rq 3. edit /usr/bin/rq to use python3. How is this handled in the vagrant environment?  It's

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

After long consideration, I have had a change of heart about this. I think.  In short, Pulp's data model has unique requirements that make it acceptable to deviate from common convention regarding ID as the PK.  Mainly that the schema is extensible by plugin writers. Given the plugin architectu

Re: [Pulp-dev] Integer IDs in Pulp 3

The PK for a task record in the db does not need to be the same as the job ID in rq/redis.  Consistency is good.  Let's make the Task.id (int like the rest of the tables) and add a job_id to correlate with rq/redis. On 07/11/2018 03:20 PM, David Davis wrote: I actually started working on conver

Re: [Pulp-dev] Branch protection

+1 On 07/10/2018 02:30 PM, David Davis wrote: We noticed in Pulp that the 2-master branch has branch protection but only to prevent force pushes and deletion. I was wondering if we should also add these checks: - Require an approving review - Require status checks (e.g. unit tests, docs test,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Task groups in the Pulp 3 MVP

+1 On 03/08/2018 05:07 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: +1 but we should also remove this[0] from the code. [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/3.0-dev/pulpcore/pulpcore/app/models/task.py#L215 On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Brian Bouterse > wrote: +1 to removing

Re: [Pulp-dev] Branching Pulp 2 for plugins

pulp-ostree has been updated. - 2-master created from master - master reset to 3.0-dev - 3.0-dev deleted On 07/02/2018 09:47 AM, David Davis wrote: In order to conform to the pulp/pulp repository, I propose we update our branches for our plugins. This would include: 1. Moving master to 2-mast

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pagination in Pulp

On 06/26/2018 08:48 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: The user should be able to specify a page size at request time. The user should also be able to specify which page they are requesting. + 1 On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 9:31 AM, David Davis > wrote: I was looking at

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

On 06/14/2018 12:19 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: On 06/14/2018 10:37 AM, Daniel Alley wrote: I will make one more suggestion.  What about naming "id" -> "uuid"?  This carries the clear connotation that it is a unique identifier so it is less likely to be confusing a la &qu

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

Thanks for your comment, Simon. This introduces a perspective that is helpful to the discussion.  Filtering on an 'ID' natural key field (such as errata_ID) in a way that is intuitive to the user is a significant use case. On 06/14/2018 12:32 PM, Simon Baatz wrote: My 2 cents (in my role as

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

On 06/14/2018 08:08 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: Jeff, can you elaborate more on your -1. I want to understand it. I'm struggling to appreciate an "it's a convention" argument without sources like an RFC or similar. I don't believe internet articles are credible sources because any viewpoint can b

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

On 06/14/2018 10:37 AM, Daniel Alley wrote: I will make one more suggestion.  What about naming "id" -> "uuid"?  This carries the clear connotation that it is a unique identifier so it is less likely to be confusing a la "id and _id", and is still less likely to have a namespace conflict. A

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

Are you recommending we rename the id field to pk in the database? I’m not sure if that would work. I'm wondering if its possible yes. #django says it is but they've been wrong before. I haven't had a chance to test it. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

On 06/08/2018 02:57 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: @jortel: We're blocked on your -1 vote expressed for 3704. We have practical plugin writer issues with the current state. Can you elaborate on why we shouldn't go forward with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3704 The 'ID' column is reserved for the

Re: [Pulp-dev] Lazy for Pulp3

On 05/31/2018 04:39 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I updated the epic (https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3693) to use this new language. policy=immediate  -> downloads now while the task runs (no lazy). Also the default if unspecified. policy=cache-and-save   -> All the steps in the diagram. Content th

Re: [Pulp-dev] Lazy for Pulp3

Looks good. Made a few minor edits. On 05/25/2018 02:11 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: A mini-team of core devs** met to talk through lazy use cases for Pulp3. It's effectively the same lazy from Pulp2 except: * it's now built into core (not just RPM) * It disincludes repo protection use cases bec

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

On 05/29/2018 08:24 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Dana Walker > wrote: I'm basically -1 for the reasons Jeff enumerated but if he is ok with this, I'm happy to go ahead with it. [Jeff]: In classic relational modeli

Re: [Pulp-dev] Content types which are not compatible with the normal pulp workflow

On 05/17/2018 07:46 AM, Daniel Alley wrote: Some content types are not going to be compatible with the normal sync/publish/distribute Pulp workflows, and will need to be live API-only.  To what degree should Pulp accomodate these use cases? Example: Pulp makes the assumptions that A) the m

Re: [Pulp-dev] 'id' versus 'pulp_id' on Content

In classic relational modeling, using ID as the primary key is common practice.  Especially when ORMs are involved.  The "id" added by plugin writers is a natural key so naming it ID goes against convention.  Every field in base models used by plugins has potential for name collisions.  Where d

Re: [Pulp-dev] is 3.0-dev branch ready to become master?

On 05/23/2018 06:20 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: It sounds like there isn't much blocking this, but does that mean the devs should go ahead with planning and making the branching changes? Also I want to confirm: is the scope of this planned change only for pulp/pulp and pulp/devel repos for now

Re: [Pulp-dev] Core Commit Bit Process

Thanks for the proposal, Brian.  Looks fine to me. On 05/21/2018 04:48 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: For core and it's related tools, we don't have a written process to describe giving the commit bit to a contributor. We've been wanting to agree on and document that process for a while, so I'm faci

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp CLI MVP User Stories

The main goal of the CLI is to make it easier (than using the REST API and http) for admins to perform routine tasks.  It seems likely that A CLI /could/ provide an improvement by reducing the REST syntax complexity without combining the steps to complete a task.  Also, I think we should consid

Re: [Pulp-dev] Composed Repositories

n't know before. I'm advocating for us to think about the problem as a specific plugin problem (step 1) and then after that is done, to look at generalizing it (step 2). On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Bryan Kearney <mailto:bkear...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 05/14/2018

Re: [Pulp-dev] Composed Repositories

On 05/15/2018 10:41 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote: On 05/15/2018 10:27 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote: On 05/14/2018 03:44 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: Let's brainstorm on something. Pulp needs to deal with remote repositories that are composed of multiple content types which may span the domain of a s

Re: [Pulp-dev] Composed Repositories

On 05/15/2018 10:27 AM, Bryan Kearney wrote: On 05/14/2018 03:44 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: Let's brainstorm on something. Pulp needs to deal with remote repositories that are composed of multiple content types which may span the domain of a single plugin. Here are a few examples.  Some Re

Re: [Pulp-dev] Composed Repositories

On 05/15/2018 09:29 AM, Milan Kovacik wrote: Hi, On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: Let's brainstorm on something. Pulp needs to deal with remote repositories that are composed of multiple content types which may

Re: [Pulp-dev] Composed Repositories

oach all or nothing? #2 speaks to me more for now. 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 Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Jeff Ortel mailto:j

Re: [Pulp-dev] Composed Repositories

trail." On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: Let's brainstorm on something. Pulp needs to deal with remote repositories that are composed of multiple content types which may span the domain of a single plugin.  Here are

[Pulp-dev] Composed Repositories

Let's brainstorm on something. Pulp needs to deal with remote repositories that are composed of multiple content types which may span the domain of a single plugin.  Here are a few examples.  Some Red Hat RPM repositories are composed of: RPMs, DRPMs, , ISOs and Kickstart Trees.  Some OSTree r

Re: [Pulp-dev] Port Pulp3 to use RQ

+1. Thank you @bmbouter and @dalley for working on this. On 05/08/2018 07:34 AM, David Davis wrote: +1. Thank you @bmbouter and @dalley for working on this. David On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Alley > wrote: I've finished my review and resolved all of

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 "auto-distribute" Feature?

On 05/07/2018 10:19 AM, Kersom Moura Oliveira wrote: Is there a specific user case that requires that a publisher and a publication to be part of a distribution? Just the publisher & publication, No. The Distribution.publication links a publication to the Distribution and is completely inde

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp CLI MVP User Stories

Thanks for putting this together.  Seems like the devil will be in the details pending REST API decisions. On 05/02/2018 01:09 PM, David Davis wrote: The CLI team has identified a set of user stories that we think we should try to accomplish for the MVP. These would be the minimum set of requi

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp api seemingly incompatible with generated bindings

On 04/30/2018 09:05 AM, David Davis wrote: So what I’d probably propose is exposing the UUIDs in the response and then extending HyperlinkedRelatedFields to accept UUID or href. Then third parties like Katello could store and just use UUIDs (and not worry about hrefs). +1 to exposing/suppor

Re: [Pulp-dev] let's rename RepositoryVersion to Snapshot

On 03/20/2018 09:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I think the change would be positive in several ways. Snapshot is a more familiar term that we can give content on what that means in Pulp (content not settings). I think this will make Pulp more approachable. It also aligns with the language aptl

Re: [Pulp-dev] Fwd: Re: Changesets Challenges

native I considered was to report progress like OSTree does.  It reports progress by periodically updating the expected TOTAL.  It's better than nothing. [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3570 Thanks! Brian On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 REST API Challenges

On 04/12/2018 04:49 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 04/11/2018 01:13 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Jeff Ortel mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 04/1

Re: [Pulp-dev] Publication delete, sync or async?

On 04/11/2018 10:34 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: From our checkin meeting, there was an MVP doc question that needed some discussion: * Publications:*https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_3_Minimum_Viable_Product#Publications

Re: [Pulp-dev] Fwd: Re: Changesets Challenges

On 04/11/2018 10:59 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 04/06/2018 09:15 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: Several plugins have started using the Changesets

Re: [Pulp-dev] Fwd: Re: Changesets Challenges

On 04/12/2018 04:00 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 04/12/2018 10:01 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Jeff Ortel mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: O

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 REST API Challenges

On 04/11/2018 01:13 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 04/10/2018 04:15 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Brian Bouterse mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote:

Re: [Pulp-dev] Fwd: Re: Changesets Challenges

On 04/12/2018 10:01 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 04/11/2018 03:29 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I think we should look into this in the near-term. Changing an interface on an object us

Re: [Pulp-dev] Fwd: Re: Changesets Challenges

On 04/11/2018 03:29 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I think we should look into this in the near-term. Changing an interface on an object used by all plugins will be significantly easier, earlier. On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote:

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 REST API Challenges

On 04/10/2018 04:15 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Brian Bouterse > wrote: These are good problem statements. I didn't understand all of the aspects of it, so I put some inline questions. My overall question is: are these rela

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 REST API Challenges

On 04/10/2018 01:04 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: These are good problem statements. I didn't understand all of the aspects of it, so I put some inline questions. My overall question is: are these related problems? To share my answer to this, I believe the first two problems are related and the

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 REST API Challenges

On 04/10/2018 04:15 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Brian Bouterse > wrote: These are good problem statements. I didn't understand all of the aspects of it, so I put some inline questions. My overall question is: are these rela

Re: [Pulp-dev] Roadmap Challenges

From a tooling perspective: we have had good success in the past with fully defining and designing a feature in a Redmine Story.  The story (description) provides a good way to capture (and edit) the overall design and (comments) support a discussion history.  Then, the implementation can be b

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 MVP Issue Cleanup

and they are built into all Issues redmine has. +1 Should I make a Categories for 'Ansible Installer', 'CLI' and 'Migration Tool' in the Pulp project on Redmine? Other suggestions and ideas are welcome. On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Jeff Ortel <ma

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 MVP Issue Cleanup

On 04/10/2018 10:15 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote: On 04/04/2018 05:09 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: Anything that is going to have it's own release cadence should be tracked in it's own project. That way we can assign issues related to specific release of that project to the particular rele

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 MVP Issue Cleanup

On 04/04/2018 05:09 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: Anything that is going to have it's own release cadence should be tracked in it's own project. That way we can assign issues related to specific release of that project to the particular release. Are we going to release the CLI, Ansible Installer,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 MVP Issue Cleanup

Looks great.  Thanks for putting this together! On 04/04/2018 02:23 PM, Austin Macdonald wrote: David and I went through all the pulpcore issues that have the "Pulp3 MVP" tag. We added this one to the sprint: * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3545 These two need to be updated before we can mo

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 REST API Challenges

On 04/09/2018 02:18 PM, Austin Macdonald wrote: Folks, Austin, Dennis, and Milan have identified the following issues with current Pulp3 REST API design: * Action endpoints are problematic. o Example POST@/importers//sync/ o They are non-RESTful and would make client code tigh

[Pulp-dev] Fwd: Re: Changesets Challenges

On 04/06/2018 09:15 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: Several plugins have started using the Changesets including pulp_ansible, pulp_python, pulp_file, and perhaps others. The Changesets provide several distinct points of value which are great, but there are

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] Importer Name

59 PM, David Davis wrote: Can you elaborate on what made you reconsider? Asking because I still see the point that you and Justin raised about dropping the fields as an issue. David On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Jeff Ortel <mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 03/12/2018

Re: [Pulp-dev] Importer Name

On 03/12/2018 10:28 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote: On 03/08/2018 10:13 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: Motivation: The name "importer" carries some inaccurate implications. 1) Importers should "import". Tasks like "sync" will do the actual importing. The object only holds

Re: [Pulp-dev] Importer Name

On 03/08/2018 10:13 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: Motivation: The name "importer" carries some inaccurate implications. 1) Importers should "import". Tasks like "sync" will do the actual importing. The object only holds the configuration that happens to be used by sync tasks. 2) Sync tasks on mir

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

On 03/02/2018 03:20 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I had neglected to write up the temporary enable/disable part of the issue, so I just updated it here: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3379 In short, one of the pulp org owners (ipanova, ttereshc, rchan, jortel, bmbouter) can temporarily enable/disab

Re: [Pulp-dev] Migrating Sprint to Custom Field

+1 On 03/02/2018 04:17 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: Redmine's milestone feature allows for roadmap pages to be published for each project on pulp.plan.io like this one [0]. Currently all projects use a single set of milestones from the main 'Pulp' project on Redmine which is

Re: [Pulp-dev] issue #3360 follow up

I'm concerned that having a single endpoint with a complicated combination of parameters that control how the endpoint behaves isn't ideal.  Especially since some of the parameters are mutually exclusive.  Seems that having /api/v3/repositories//versions/ endpoint do one thing is cleaner.  Shou

Re: [Pulp-dev] Plugin Writer's Coding Workshop Feedback

Thanks for providing this feedback, Brian.!  Good stuff. On 02/12/2018 03:57 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: At the Foreman Construction day [0] last Wednesday, we had our first code focused plugin writer's workshop. About 6 people were actively engaged as we talked through the plugin API, example c

Re: [Pulp-dev] Adding Model.created.

well. David On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Jeff Ortel mailto:jor...@redhat.com>> wrote: A few of our models have a field: created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) To support ordering needed by a FilePlugin use case, I'm planning to

[Pulp-dev] Adding Model.created.

A few of our models have a field: created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) To support ordering needed by a FilePlugin use case, I'm planning to add Content.created as it seems generally useful and I believe will be needed by most plugins. This raises a more general question: should we

  1   2   3   >