The expectations are fine. I was point out on #pulp-docker just today that the pulp2 implementation is excruciatingly slow (as in 40 seconds to remove a single manifest) for large enough repositories.
So as long as the implementation is avoiding complicated database queries in favor of maybe simpler approaches, I think these are reasonable. On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:29 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello community, > > we are trying to gather feedback on docker content removal behaviour in Pulp3. > Here are the use cases we came up with, please share your thoughts and > expectations. > > When it is desired to remove docker content from a repo, the expectations are > that: > * when a docker image manifest is removed, all its blobs( not referenced > by other image manifests) are removed as well. Also tags that were > referencing this manifest will be removed. > > * When a docker manifest list is removed, all its manifests( not > referenced by other manifests lists and not tagged) are removed as well. > Furthermore, same story with the blobs. Also tags that were referencing this > manifest list will be removed. > > *When a tag is removed , only tag is removed. > > Do you find this recursive removal behaviour useful and expect it work the > way it got described above? Or simple removal makes more sense, e.g. just > image manifest and its tag are removed? > > > Thank you. > > -------- > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Senior 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." > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-list mailing list > Pulp-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
