Thanks for digging through older issues to find potential RC blockers. 2889 - +1 to making it an RC blocker 2635 - +1 here as well 2850 - I spent some time working on this and didn’t get far. I think we should just require the db to be running. I vote to close it out. 2989 - +1 to RC blocker 3044 - I guess we should revisit 3051 and decide on a design before the RC which will determine if the distribution endpoints need to be async? 2247 - Agreed on closing. Seems like we open issues on an as-needed basis 2656 - Seems like this is done or am I missing something? 3062 - Will checking in migrations to source control not solve this problem? 3248 - I haven’t heard anyone asking for jwt so I would say we don’t need it. We can just leave the issue open I think.
David On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:41 PM Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com> wrote: > To be on the safe side, I'd like to highlight issues that *might* need to > be RC blockers. Please reply directly onto the issue, I'll update this > thread periodically if necessary. > > REST API, backwards incompatible changes: > > - Add Task Names: > - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2889 > - IMO: We should make this an RC Blocker, because this will be an > additional requirement for every task in every plugin. > - Determine mutable fields > - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2635 > - IMO: someone (or a group) should take this as assigned and audit > the mutability of fields. If we find one that needs to change, it will > be a > backwards incompatible change to the REST API, so this should have the > RC > blocker tack. > - Status API without db connection > - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2850 > - IMO: RC blocker or close. As it is the db connection field is not > useful, and later removal would be backwards incompatible. > - Add new field, Publication.created > - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2989 > - IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a backwards incompatible > change. > - Asynchronous Distribution update/delete > - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3044 > - IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a backwards incompatible > change. > > Packaging > > - Port dependencies to Python 3 > - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2247 > - IMO: It seems like if this weren't done, we'd be having problems. > Anyone mind if I close this one? If we do need to keep it open, should > it > be an RC blocker? > - Plugins can declare PluginAPI version > - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2656 > - IMO: Are we happy with what we've got now? If we want to change > it, now is the time. > > Misc > > - pulp-manager migrate order > - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3062 > - IMO: RC Blocker. This is how users should migrate, so it should > be correct before RC > - jwt > - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248 > - This was removed from Beta (MVP) but do we need this for RC/GA? > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
