Thanks for bringing up this topic. I feel like it’s been worthwhile to explore it as RepositoryVersion isn’t a perfect name for the concept.
David On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you everyone for your feedback. I agree that snapshot carries some > connotations that are not congruent with the mental model we want to > present to our users. -1 from me also :) > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:35 AM, David Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I concur with @dalley. I read through the wikipedia article on snapshots >> in computer storage again and it just doesn’t seem to fit our model. >> Snapshots typically mean backups or archives and using them to describe the >> current state of the repository doesn’t make sense. As Ina says, a user >> should instead trigger a snapshot to create a copy/backup/archive of a >> repository’s content. Creating a new snapshot automatically by modifying >> the current state of the repo doesn’t make sense. >> >> >> David >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> -0 to changing the name. Shorter is good, but I do think the name is >>> misleading, and I disagree with the reasoning provided in the meeting the >>> other day that "snapshot is more self-explanatory" - which I don't believe >>> that it is. >>> >>> this term is not unique to Pulp so it is easier to explain to the user >>> >>> >>> I think Ina's point from the other day about what meaning other >>> developers - not affiliated with pulp - associate with the name "snapshot" >>> shouldn't be dismissed. If we're reusing a term but attaching a meaning to >>> it that is not quite the same as what the average person would guess it >>> was, the information won't "stick" as well. >>> >>> Sure, there are Pulp concepts that have to be explained to the user in >>> any event, but we should still try to match their expectations as closely >>> as possible. >>> >>> And while I'd welcome data to the contrary, I don't think a user would >>> have a harder time understanding the concept of a "RepositoryVersion" than >>> they would a "Snapshot". It's pure composition. People are familiar with >>> repositories, people are familiar with versions.. I don't see a problem >>> there. >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Ina Panova <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 to keep RepositoryVersion. >>>> >>>> I also do not like the fact that it is quite long, that's why i do like >>>> the Snapshot, but thinking more of what snapshot is - is something that >>>> *you* need to trigger and it is not triggered automatically. >>>> I'd say, we are working with repository versioning and not snapshots. >>>> >>>> Back to aptly, they use the term shapshot, which you need to manually >>>> create https://www.aptly.info/doc/aptly/snapshot/create/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Ina Panova >>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>> >>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Matthias Dellweg <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I guess, you meant 'RepositoryVersions' there. Maybe it is just a typo, >>>>> or maybe your subconciousness already adepted to this change. ;) >>>>> >>>>> I'm +1, because from the REST API or model view, you do not ask what >>>>> changed, but rather what is in that snapshot|version. >>>>> And since you are renaming all models of pulp3 atm, you are giving a >>>>> plugin maintainer a hard time, anyway. I think, it's now or never. >>>>> >>>>> Matthias >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:55:14 -0400 >>>>> David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > I’m not too worried about the change being too large. However, I >>>>> > agree with @dalley though about snapshot not fitting my mental model >>>>> > of how I view snapshots so any work seems like a loss to me. >>>>> > >>>>> > I’m at -1 but am happy to talk more about it. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > David >>>>> > >>>>> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Alley <[email protected]> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > > I think of a "snapshot" like a VM snapshot or a Windows restore >>>>> > > point - an archival copy of a very fluid and non-discrete system at >>>>> > > one point in time. By that understanding, the term >>>>> > > RepositoryVersion probably fits better. >>>>> > > >>>>> > > I acknowledge the other benefits though. -/+0? >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Dennis Kliban < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> > > wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> The article you link to just says that "a snapshot is the state of >>>>> > >> a system at a particular point in time". The point in time can be >>>>> > >> now or in the past. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> The current state of a repository's content would be described as >>>>> > >> the latest or most recent snapshot of a repository. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> I am not too worried about the pain of doing the refactoring >>>>> across >>>>> > >> multiple repos. >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:20 AM, David Davis >>>>> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >>> I have some reservations about using the name Snapshot. >>>>> > >>> Specifically, I don’t think the snapshot term is a good fit. As >>>>> > >>> wikipedia says [0], in CS a snapshot represents a state of >>>>> > >>> something "in the past.” How would we describe the current state >>>>> > >>> of the repository’s content then? I think "current version" would >>>>> > >>> make sense but not "current snapshot.” >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> Also, changing the code in pulpcore and plugins is going to be a >>>>> > >>> pain. Especially with the other things we have planned like >>>>> > >>> renaming Importers to Remotes. I think this should factor into >>>>> > >>> our decision as well. >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> David >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Austin Macdonald >>>>> > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>>> "Snapshot" is a nice way to explain what a RepositoryVersion is, >>>>> > >>>> especially in the context of Publications. "Publish a >>>>> > >>>> snapshot." I like the idea, and I informally floated it around >>>>> > >>>> PulpCon but decided not to propose it because: >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> - Snapshot is a little misleading about the actual data we >>>>> > >>>> store. Specifically, since RepositoryVersions are stored as >>>>> > >>>> diffs, when a user views the "content in a version", this is >>>>> > >>>> calculated. This is a subtle point, and hopefully not user >>>>> > >>>> facing at all, but I think snapshot implies a little bit more >>>>> > >>>> certainty than we can offer. >>>>> > >>>> - A snapshot also implies a slightly different workflow to >>>>> > >>>> me. The workflow I expect with snapshots is to change >>>>> > >>>> Repositories "willy nilly", and when you are satisfied, you >>>>> > >>>> "take" an snapshot. Versions imply the workflow we have, which >>>>> > >>>> is that any time the content set of a Repository is changed, a >>>>> > >>>> new version is created. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> However, I think those concerns are minor and are overshadowed >>>>> > >>>> by the potential benefits. Also, I see a direct connection to >>>>> > >>>> the thread "Plugin relationship to tasks". The name >>>>> > >>>> Snapshot/RepositoryVersion is part of the choice of how we >>>>> > >>>> portray the changing of content set of a repo. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> 1. We can "change a repo" which creates a new version. >>>>> > >>>> 2. We can "create a new version" which has different content. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> To me (1) implies "dispatching a task that has the side effect >>>>> of >>>>> > >>>> creating a new repository version. It would lend itself well to >>>>> > >>>> the concept of "managing repositories" rather than "managing >>>>> > >>>> versions/snapshots". If we choose this way, I think the name >>>>> > >>>> Snapshot conceptually makes sense. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> (2) implies a POST to create a new RepositoryVersion. As >>>>> > >>>> explained in the plugin tasks thread, there are some problems >>>>> > >>>> with this, but it is similar to the concept of creating a git >>>>> > >>>> commit. I think we wouldn't think of "creating a new Snapshot" >>>>> > >>>> to change the content. >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Dennis Kliban >>>>> > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> > >>>>> I propose that we rename the RepositoryVersion model in Pulp 3 >>>>> > >>>>> to Snapshot. The REST API would also change to use >>>>> > >>>>> /api/v3/repositories/<uuid>/snapshot/ >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> The Snapshot name is a better description of what a repository >>>>> > >>>>> version is and it is also much shorter in length. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> -Dennis >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> > >>>>> 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 >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Herzliche Grüße aus München >>>>> >>>>> Matthias Dellweg >>>>> ______________________________________________________ >>>>> Dr. Matthias M. Dellweg >>>>> >>>>> (Open Source Software Engineer) >>>>> >>>>> Tel: +49 (0)89 452 35 38-12 >>>>> Fax: +49 (0)89 452 35 38-290 >>>>> E-Mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> ATIX - The Linux & Open Source Company >>>>> >>>>> ATIX Informationstechnologie und Consulting AG >>>>> Parkring 15 >>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Parkring+15+%0D%0A85748+Garching+bei+M%C3%BCnchen&entry=gmail&source=g> >>>>> 85748 Garching bei München >>>>> www.atix.de >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, Registernummer: HRB 168930 >>>>> USt.-Id.: DE209485962 >>>>> Vorstand: Thomas Merz (Vors.), Mark Hlawatschek >>>>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Dr. Martin Buss >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
