I got some positive IRC feedback about the names in the doc, but nothing via e-mail. I've added the PyPI names to be registered from the Google doc to the ticket about registering them [0]. It needs to be groomed. I plan to nominate it at sprint planning tomorrow.
[0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2444 -Brian On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > 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_eOefpHkwtxm1YXgjAypGHW826Ogt5Z > 3Us4elg-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
