I'm reviewing this PR today, and if it tests well I'm +1 on merging this.
Thank you Simon!
I can integrate it into my work as well for the exposure of repository
versions directly with distributions: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4745
On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 3:26 PM Simon Baatz wrote:
> On Mon,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 02:48:29PM -0400, Dennis Kliban wrote:
>+1 ... Want to write up a story?
Yes! I created the story 4785 [1] and a draft PR [2] that contains the
basic functionality. Comments welcome!
[1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4785
[2] https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/117
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:51:00PM -0400, Brian Bouterse wrote:
>After some discussion the proposal has been adjusted to leave
>publishers as-is and only introduce Master/Detail Publications with
>this change. [1]https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4678#note-6
>Please provide more feedback
I updated the description of the story and removed the "Publishers Removal"
part.
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 Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:53 PM Brian Bouterse
After some discussion the proposal has been adjusted to leave publishers
as-is and only introduce Master/Detail Publications with this change.
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4678#note-6
Please provide more feedback as this likely will be work we try to include
for rc2.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 4:20
I wrote up the story on switching publications to Master/Detail and
removing publishers. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4678
Please read it through and ask questions. I believe adding it can be done
in a backwards compatible way so it's addition in maybe rc2 shouldn't be
disruptive. The disruptive
The docker plugin is going to get rid of Publishers and Publications[0]. We
are planning to update the DockerDistribution with a 'RepositoryVersion'
field. If any other plugins want to do the same thing, we will need to make
a change in pulpcore to the Distribution model.
[0]
I still feel like there’s value in allowing users to create publications
without publishers too. For instance, in pulp_file we create passthrough
publications but also we generate publication metadata[0]. I could easily
see a plugin writer wanting to do something similar but without a
publisher. I
Thank you for writing this out. The most significant issue I read in this
is that 3 of the 9 plugins are having their users take steps that aren't
adding any value in their workflow. They want to (and have an opportunity
to) take repository version content and expose it directly. They don't need
TLDR:
Auto-distribution of publications is performed implicitly instead of
explicitly.
Plugins that don't generate metadata during publish have to provide a
generic publisher.
Users have to keep track of publishers to make sure auto-distribution of
new publications works.
More background:
10 matches
Mail list logo
