On 09/08/2016 12:35 PM, Jeremy Cline wrote: > 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?
Yep, that's a plan. +1. > >> >> 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? True. Might be better to deal with this sooner rather than later. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
