With 3.1 being a time-based release I put the 3.1 label on 5567, 5964, 5968, and 5286. Let's continue to look at the 3.1 items to see how we want to spend our effort https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/issues?query_id=145
I also added 5974 to 3.1 so we can look at that as well. On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:18 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 to considering #5567 and #5964 for 3.1. > > #5968 is mostly done. This seems like a nice thing to wrap up for 3.1. > #5286 would be another nice-to-have for 3.1 as well. > > AFAIK, we don't have a story for a universal repo list. > > David > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 3:16 PM Simon Baatz <gmbno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:10:34PM -0500, Brian Bouterse wrote: >> > David and I are coordinating the 3.1 pulpcore release. We are >> proposing >> > we release 3.1 on Jan 30th, and have it be a time-based release. >> > Tentatively, we hope to release about a pulpcore y-release every >> month >> > for the foreseeable feature. It's also worth noting that 3.1 could >> > bring breaking changes to the plugin API as the plugin API has not >> yet >> > stabilized. >> > Currently the items we want to include are shown in the 3.1 >> milestone: >> > [1]https://pulp.plan.io/versions/73 >> > Please email the list raising any issue your plugin needs, or a user >> > use case that you feel needs to be included in 3.1. >> > At the moment, the main user-visible features are around content >> > signing. To practically benefit users, plugins will need to integrate >> > against these content signing facilities. For example, metadata or >> > Artifact signing features in plugins. >> > Cheers, >> > Brian & David >> >> Who wants features when one can squash bugs? >> >> - Bring the repo_key uniqueness saga to a happy ending (hopefully): >> #5567 and #5964 >> >> - This is a funny one: Filters for Publications (for real!): #5968 >> >> >> Possible Features (no must haves for 3.1, these are on my list of >> issues to watch. I just want to ensure that they aren't excluded from >> 3.1 just because we forgot about them): >> >> - When we switched to typed repos, we discussed about implementing a >> universal "list repos" endpoint. I can't find an issue though? >> >> - #5286 (option to handle 404s gracefully during sync) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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