On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > > > On 11/27/18 11:45 PM, James Cassell wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > >> > >> On 11/27/18 3:20 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > >>> > >>> On 11/27/18 8:29 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: > >>>> Yes, and AFAIK this is already complete. There are 2 fields on the > >>>> Distribution that allow auto-distribution. These fields must both be > >>>> set, and when they are, new publications will automatically update > >>>> the distribution. > >>> The Auto-distribution feature is not the same as auto-publish in pulp2 > >>> which automatically triggered a publish at the end of a sync. The > >>> auto-distribution feature automatically makes a newly created > >>> publication "live" after it has been created. This is done by > >>> updating distributions (per configuration) with the newly created > >>> publication. As a result, the publication will be served by the > >>> distribution. This is different than auto-publish in pulp2. > >> Currently, there are no plans to support pulp2 auto-publish in pulp3. > >> > > How would one achieve the same behaviour? Is this a big functionality loss? > > By not providing auto-publish, the responsibility for publishing after > sync just shifts to the user. For use cases where the user is manually > triggering the sync, a subsequent API call would be needed to also > trigger the publish. For scheduled sync use cases or other cases where > the sync is trigger though external automation, the automation could > implement auto publish by triggering a publish following a successful > sync. This seems straight forward enough and puts the responsibility > for making the decision to publish in the hands of the user. > > The decision to not provide auto-publish in the pulp 3.0 core does not > imply that the auto-publish flow has been dismissed as insignificant. > But instead, is intended to promote implementations outside the core > because it seemed more appropriate. If this approach proves to be a > significant burden on the user, we've had some preliminary discussions > on mitigation. For example, some tooling could be provided. For > example: some libs for python and bash scripting etc. But, in the end, > if users end up wanting/needing this back in core, that can be discussed > as well. >
Sounds very reasonable. A cut/paste into the docs of the above would be helpful. V/r, James Cassell P.S., didn't mean for my last message to be off list, sorry. _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
