Just curious, but I assume that for an async plugin release that would imply zero changes to the exposed APIs and only fixes to the underlying code?
As a consumer of pulp, we install pulp-server not individual plugins. If a plugin changes it's exposed interface (ie. API) then I'd expect a bump on the primary product version. Foreman has an interface layer that, if the API changes, may itself require updates. If API is 100% backward compatible, then there shouldn't be a problem. On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Ina Panova <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dennis, >> thank you for sending out the summary of our meeting. >> >> Just to highlight and check the overall understanding - there will be >> one repository per Y pulp release which might contain multiple Z and Y >> plugin version releases. >> Correct me if i am wrong. >> >> > That is correct. > > > >> What would be our next steps in terms of collaboration with the build >> team? >> >> >> > My understanding was that Patrick is planning to do some investigation and > report back on this thread. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > >> >> -------- >> 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 Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Earlier today a few of us met to discuss how we can release new Y >>> releases of plugins without a Y release of the platform accompanying them. >>> >>> The initial proposal was to publish a new Y release of a plugin at the >>> same time as a Z release of platform and other plugins. More concretely, we >>> were discussing putting pulp-docker-* 3.2.0 packages into the 2.16 >>> repository[0]. This repository currently contains 3.1.3 packages. >>> Publishing 3.2.0 packages to this repository would completely remove the >>> 3.1.3 pulp-docker packages. Since 3.1.3 pulp-docker-* packages were only >>> published to the 2.16 repository, the only 3.1.z package available after a >>> publish of 3.2.0 would be 3.1.2 in the 2.15 repository[1]. After >>> identifying this problem, we decided to NOT release pulp-docker-* 3.2.0 >>> with the 2.16.2 z-stream release. >>> >>> In order to eliminate this problem in the future, we would like to >>> investigate if it will be possible to compose repositories with new Y >>> releases of plugins while retaining the previous versions of packages that >>> were already published to the repository before. If this is possible, we >>> would try to start composing our Z stream repositories in such a way >>> starting with 2.17.0 release. >>> >>> Questions? Thoughts? Ideas? >>> >>> >>> [0] https://repos.fedorapeople.org/pulp/pulp/stable/2.16/7Server/x86_64/ >>> [1] https://repos.fedorapeople.org/pulp/pulp/stable/2.15/7Server/x86_64/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
