Just wanted to add a comment regarding the reason for the ULN version bump
below.
From: pulp-dev-boun...@redhat.com on behalf of
Daniel Alley
Sent: 11 May 2021 20:55
To: Grant Gainey
Cc: Pulp-dev
Subject: Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_rpm and current backwards
I'm sorry, this is going to be a noisy thread for a while - but this is
Complicated, and I want to make sure everyone stays on the same page as we
get ourselves out of this thicket...
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 4:20 PM Grant Gainey wrote:
> Whew. So anyway, the sequence to unsnarl this goes
Hey gang -
After learning of some other Complications, the timeline/steps I've listed
need to be a little more complete. The key additional points are
- there's a third pulp_rpm commit that needs post-core-3.12 code (3157ad
These are the commits that definitely need to be reverted (in-order). We
also want to check up on the signing service, either to make sure the
migration plugin doesn't hit that codepath, or that we're still compatible
with 3.7 even though pulpcore 3.10 introduced some changes that we had to
be
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:36 PM Grant Gainey wrote:
>
> I'm going to submit a PR to get pulp_rpm's CI unbroken, that has to happen
> before we do anything else. THEN I will respond to final review-comments on
> PR 1984. Once that passes, THEN we can talk about what happens next. (That
> PR, for
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:18 PM Tanya Tereshchenko
wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> Thanks for putting this together.
> It sounds about right, as a general idea of what needs to happen.
>
> I would leave it to a person who performs all the git fu to figure out
> exact commits and details and to the
Hi Grant,
Thanks for putting this together.
It sounds about right, as a general idea of what needs to happen.
I would leave it to a person who performs all the git fu to figure out
exact commits and details and to the reviewer of all those changes, when PR
1984 is ready to be merged and releases
Ah I see that you will be reordering migrations. Nevermind my idea. I think
you have the right plan.
David
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:02 PM David Davis wrote:
> What if you create a 3.11 release branch and then revert the commits on
> the 3.11 branch? That would save you from having to reapply
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:02 PM David Davis wrote:
> What if you create a 3.11 release branch and then revert the commits on
> the 3.11 branch? That would save you from having to reapply the two
> commits.
>
But then we'd have to cherry-pick lots more, one of which would be a
schema-change :(
What if you create a 3.11 release branch and then revert the commits on the
3.11 branch? That would save you from having to reapply the two commits.
You could also pin to pulpcore < 3.12 on the 3.11 branch to get the branch
passing while you work on fixing the enqueue problem on master.
David
Hey folks,
We've been talking about how we need a pulpcore/3.7-to-3.11-compatible
release of pulp_rpm. The static_context change requires a schema-change,
and it has to be available to katello-3.18 (and hence pulpcore-3.7)
The static_context change is PR#1984
11 matches
Mail list logo
