On 09/08/2016 12:41 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > +1 to the proposal pending: > > 1. a more solid plan to provide for what the pulp2 group distributor is doing > wrt group publishing with a > single configuration.
My proposal is that we *don't* add a special way to do this unless there is a very, very good reason (and I don't think there is right now). Currently, this workflow has lots of oddities around it, like filtering out repositories in the group that aren't of the type a distributor can handle. Why not just let the client handle looping through a repository group and publishing/syncing/deleting each repository? If the client wants a unified configuration, why not have them copy the repositories they want in the group and configure them all the same way? > > 2. let's keep the importer FK to repository required for now. That way we > don't create the possibility of > orphaned importers until we re-implement alternate content sources. It's an > easy migration later to just make > the FK not-null. One thing to keep in mind is currently the importer has a natural key based on the repository. I believe dropping the non-null requirement on the repository FK will break this. Do we want to bite that bullet later? -- Jeremy Cline XMPP: [email protected] IRC: jcline
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
