+1 to not create empty repo versions for now On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:34 PM Fabricio Aguiar <fabricio.agu...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Sounds good to me. > > Best regards, > Fabricio Aguiar > Software Engineer, Pulp Project > Red Hat Brazil - Latam <https://www.redhat.com/> > +55 11 999652368 > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:38 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> That sounds good to me. What if for the GA, we just not create a new >> version if content hasn't changed and then create an issue for post-GA to >> add a setting to always create a new version? >> >> David >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 3:28 AM Fabricio Aguiar < >> fabricio.agu...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> how about making a default setting and document, adverting why the >>> default is (bump/not bump the version). >>> This way we give autonomy to users to decide whether to bump or not the >>> version >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Fabricio Aguiar >>> Software Engineer, Pulp Project >>> Red Hat Brazil - Latam <https://www.redhat.com/> >>> +55 11 999652368 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:52 PM Mike DePaulo <mikedep...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:50 PM Mike DePaulo <mikedep...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:39 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbou...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> tl;dr I'm +1 to making this switch. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:51 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Currently in pulp, syncs always create repository versions >>>>>>> regardless of whether or not any content changed. One of the tasks[0] >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> 3.0 GA is to document this behavior. However, I've heard several >>>>>>> complaints >>>>>>> about this from users so I wonder if it's worth reconsidering. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I love making users happy, but the complaints didn't resonate as much >>>>>> with me because another user with a different subjective preferences >>>>>> could >>>>>> walk up and complain after we switch it. I try to listen for user >>>>>> complaints that come with objective claims of usability. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are some reasons against always creating repo versions: >>>>>>> - They were meant to serve as a historical record but this >>>>>>> information is available by looking at the tasks api >>>>>>> - It creates additional, unnecessary versions and bumps the latest >>>>>>> version number of the repo >>>>>>> - If we ever have a feature to retain only the latest X repo >>>>>>> versions, it'll be less useful since some repo versions may not have any >>>>>>> changes >>>>>>> >>>>>> This last bullet I see an objective reason to make no-content-change >>>>>> repo versions not increment. Users concerned about their cron jobs not >>>>>> running can check the task records. Users get RepositoryVersions that >>>>>> always include change and are therefore more meaningful (perhaps that was >>>>>> Bin Li's objective claim). Also future users could get a repo-version >>>>>> retention option which would be difficult to create if we don't switch >>>>>> this. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From a black-box perspective, how about some sort of compromise >>>>> solution? Like a minor version number being bumped if there is a no-change >>>>> sync. Or a separate field like "1st identical repo version." >>>>> >>>> >>>> Whether we implement a compromise or not, this current proposal should >>>> be implemented 1st. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Any thoughts? I'd like to get this on the sprint by Wednesday so it >>>>>>> can be changed before the dev freeze date of Nov 12. >>>>>>> >>>>>> +1 to making this change >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3308 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Mike DePaulo >>>>> >>>>> He / Him / His >>>>> >>>>> Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp >>>>> >>>>> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> >>>>> >>>>> IM: mikedep333 >>>>> >>>>> GPG: 51745404 >>>>> <https://www.redhat.com/> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Mike DePaulo >>>> >>>> He / Him / His >>>> >>>> Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp >>>> >>>> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> >>>> >>>> IM: mikedep333 >>>> >>>> GPG: 51745404 >>>> <https://www.redhat.com/> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
