My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+.
As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal impact. is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2? On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services. > It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction of > legacy version. > I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones unchanged > and more importantly without version in the name. > -0 to make names configurable. > > Tanya > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users >> have upgraded to a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3. >> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release >> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the >> version we are supporting the upgrade from. >> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less variation >> in naming conventions. >> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will lock >> services names to Pulp version. >> >> @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make only >> the hyphens change. >> @asmacdo <amacd...@redhat.com> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i think >> this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429 >> >> -------- >> 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 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri <mpusa...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc >>> notes in, I don't see it as a problem. >>> >>> Matt P. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting for >>>> Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern to my >>>> knowledge. >>>> >>>> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david >>>> pointed out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the >>>> least invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us >>>> feedback that the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I >>>> agree with his observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future >>>> proofed solution. I would argue that Option 2 is the "least invasive" in >>>> the short term because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived >>>> (ironically for the same reasons you noted.) >>>> >>>> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you >>>> suggest any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about >>>> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's >>>> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd >>>> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if >>>> there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be >>>> clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on >>>> this.) >>>> >>>> -Robin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring <bherr...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on >>>>> Pulp3? >>>>> >>>>> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems >>>>> strange to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and >>>>> should >>>>> be making minimal changes. >>>>> >>>>> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would >>>>> have on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3, >>>>> doesn't it make more sense to make those changes there when the product >>>>> has yet to be launched? >>>>> >>>>> BRIAN HERRING >>>>> >>>>> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE >>>>> >>>>> Red Hat >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.redhat.com/> >>>>> >>>>> 100 East Davie Street >>>>> >>>>> Raleigh, NC, 27601 >>>>> >>>>> bherr...@redhat.com M: +19193238427 IM: bherring >>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom <ker...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause >>>>>> impacts that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that >>>>>> we >>>>>> will spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point >>>>>> less >>>>>> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in >>>>>>> addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the >>>>>>> hyphen change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with >>>>>>> @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, >>>>>>> so >>>>>>> I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the >>>>>>> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> pulp2 ourselves). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Dana >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dana Walker >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Associate Software Engineer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://www.redhat.com> >>>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to a >>>>>>>> minimal version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp >>>>>>>> 2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms <ehe...@redhat.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Howdy, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be >>>>>>>>> ran side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp >>>>>>>>> resource >>>>>>>>> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd >>>>>>>>> resources >>>>>>>>> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> can't tell them apart). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate >>>>>>>>> this situation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Example: pulp3-resource-manager >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd >>>>>>>>> with semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Example: pulp2-resource-manager >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by >>>>>>>>> users onto their setups or through RPM releases. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular >>>>>>>>> Pulp2 version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway). >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
