I generally recommend picking a recent x.y release and always staying
current on its z stream updates (i.e 2.8.6). I also recommend upgrading
y releases often because we are releasing smaller changes, more often
now and new features come with y releases along with updates. Also,
security updates usually land in the current y stream and maybe y-1, so
staying current puts you in a good position to receive the latest fixes.
We try to make the upgrades easy also.
Beta and release candidate testing helps everyone because issues
discovered during someone's upgrade could have been found earlier. It
also allows you to verify if the upcoming release will meet your needs
too. Always have a new, non-production system when beta/rc testing.
Note, we do not support upgrading a beta/rc install to newer beta, rc,
or ga version.
Since Pulp 2.4.0, Pulp tries to adhere to semantic versioning [0] for
it's API, CLI, and as much as possible, the plugin API. This means that
if you are integrating or using against Pulp or its CLI, there should
never be backwards incompatible changes on the 2.y line. At some point
we are going to move to Pulp 3.0, but at least when you decide to
upgrade to a new 2.y release, you know what you are getting.
[0]: semver.org
-Brian
On 07/21/2016 11:28 PM, Aaron Johnson wrote:
Thank you for the response, we upgraded to pulp 2.8.6 today so we are
hoping things will improve.
Is there any response from the devs on the release strategy for pulp?
On Jul 20, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Alejandro Cortina
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
we had the issues you mentioned with 2.8.3, updated to 2.8.4 and so
far (+/- 1 month I guess) is working smooth.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:57 AM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I am looking for recommendations on what release of Pulp is
recommended for production deployments.
We have been running Pulp 2.3 in production for the past year
and are currently building out new production infrastructure to
deploy our new production Pulp environment on top of.
We planned to deploy the latest stable release of Pulp which at
the time was Pulp version 2.8.3.
We have Pulp 2.8.3 running on the new infra and are currently
dealing with various pulp tasks hanging with State: Waiting
and Start Time: Unstarted
I've noticed that the Katello project has recently upgraded
their stable release (3.0 currently) to use Pulp 2.8.4 packages
located here:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/katello/releases/yum/3.0/pulp/el7/x86_64/
And previously Pulp 2.6 was used as the stable packages for
Katello (skipping Pulp 2.7 altogether).
For production deployments is Pulp 2.8.x the recommended release
to use, or should people be deploying Pulp 2.9.x in prod, or
just skip Pulp 2.9.x and use for devel environments only?
Hopefully this question makes sense to you. It would be nice if
the Pulp project had some sort of LTS release (Long Term
Support) to help guide users to the most stable branch of
development.
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
_______________________________________________
Pulp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
