To make a concrete listing of what we would register, I wrote out a list of all PyPI packages to be registered as column A here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F6_eOefpHkwtxm1YXgjAypGHW826Ogt5Z3Us4elg-YY/edit?usp=sharing I've written these out with dashes not underscores. I *think* either would work. Is this what others had in mind? On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michael Hrivnak <[email protected]> wrote: > I also imagine us getting to that point where the CLI does not require any > code specific to a particular plugin, but I'm not sure we'll get there in > 3.0. > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 to all of the core stuff. Thank you for writing it up. >> >> For the pulp_rpm case +0 to what you had written. I had imagined it with >> a slightly different example, but I think in practice it's almost the same. >> >> pip install pulp_rpm >> from pulp_rpm import anything >> >> As an aside, I'm hoping that plugins only have to provide a server >> package and that by installing it on the server the CLI will know about the >> additional command set somehow. If so this would avoid plugin writers >> having to make additional pulp_rpm_common and pulp_rpm_cli pip packages. If >> we can't do that then I would think the pip and import for a plugin like >> RPM would be: >> >> pip install pulp_rpm >> pip install pulp_rpm_common >> pip install pulp_rpm_cli >> >> from pulp_rpm import anything >> from pulp_rpm import cli >> from pulp_rpm import common >> >> Does ^ make sense? Is that similar or different to how others imagined >> it? It's slightly different than the example given by @mrhivnak, but in >> practice I don't think it is different. >> >> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Jeff Ortel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1, This sounds good to me. >>>> >>>> On 05/11/2017 10:59 AM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: >>>> > We had a brainstorm session today to re-evaluate the >>>> previously-identified options, and try to come up with >>>> > some new ones. None of the previously-identified options had enough >>>> support to be chosen. See the thread "PyPI >>>> > names for Pulp3" for background. >>>> > >>>> > To re-cap, we are focused on two related questions: >>>> > >>>> > 1. What python namespace should Pulp use, since we cannot continue to >>>> use "pulp"? >>>> > >>>> > 2. What PyPI package names should we use? >>>> > >>>> > I pitched an idea for 1 that everyone on the call liked, which is >>>> "pulpcore". It could alternatively be >>>> > "pulp_core", although my pinky finger prefers the former. The group >>>> of roughly 10 people who participated in >>>> > the discussion are recommending "pulpcore" for consideration as the >>>> python namespace to replace "pulp". Please >>>> > add your feedback to this thread. >>>> > >>>> > "core" is likable because it implies a plugin architecture. It's >>>> similar to the word "platform" that we've >>>> > used extensively, but shorter (which people liked), and perhaps >>>> slightly more descriptive (which people also >>>> > liked). Example: >>>> > >>>> > from pulpcore import streamer >>>> > >>>> > We discussed renaming what is currently "pulp.platform" to something >>>> more descriptive. "platform" is a word >>>> > that's been with us a long time, but it's worth re-considering, >>>> especially if we shift to a similar word such >>>> > as "core". "pulpcore.platform" seems awkward. >>>> > >>>> > A proposal is "pulpcore.apps", since that code is all directly >>>> related to the celery app and django app. >>>> > >>>> > Python namespaces would include: >>>> > >>>> > pulpcore.apps >>>> > pulpcore.cli >>>> > pulpcore.common >>>> > pulpcore.plugin >>>> > pulpcore.streamer >>>> > >>>> > For python package names, they would look something like this: >>>> > >>>> > pip install pulpcore >>>> > pip install pulpcore_cli >>>> > pip install pulpcore_streamer >>>> > pip install pulpcore_common >>>> > >>>> > Plugins would continue to use their existing namespace and package >>>> names, with whatever variations are >>>> > appropriate in Pulp 3. For example: >>>> > >>>> > import pulp_rpm.plugins >>>> > pip install pulp_rpm_plugins >>>> > >>>> > Thoughts? Those of you who were part of the discussion, please chime >>>> in with any additional points you'd like >>>> > to highlight. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > >>>> > Michael Hrivnak >>>> > >>>> > Principal Software Engineer, RHCE >>>> > >>>> > Red Hat >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> > [email protected] >>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > > -- > > Michael Hrivnak > > Principal Software Engineer, RHCE > > Red Hat >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
