Re: [Pulp-dev] Consolidating plugin listing on pulpproject.org for user clarity?
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 6:00 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > Hi Brian, > > I agree with the problems identified. > I'm concerned that the same plugins have a different set of features > in Pulp 2 and Pulp 3, e.g, pulp_rpm. Having it just marked as compatible > with both Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 might create an assumption that the same > features are available for both Pulp 2 and Pulp 3. > Some plugins are separated or renamed, it's hard to mark them compatible > or not, e.g. Pulp 3 pulp_file should be marked as a part of Pulp 2 > pulp_rpm? Pulp 2 pulp_docker - a part of pulp_container in Pulp 3? > > I wonder if we should keep pulp 2 and pulp 3 plugins separate, maybe on > the same page but not in the same table? > Alternatively, many footnotes with clarifications might help. > Thanks for sharing this perspective, I agree with the concerns and the ideas to resolve. > Thanks, > Tanya > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:37 PM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> Melanie, >> >> I'm sending via pulp-dev for more visibility, but I wanted to see what >> you think specifically. Recently a user gave us feedback via an issue on >> Pulp 3 pain points for usage [0]. A lot of it is code and docs, and we're >> working to address those, but the last bullet says: >> >> "On the project page you tells that Pulp can manage plainty of repo type, >> but in fact if you take a fresh version only few plugins are working. Is >> there at least a compatibility/status matrix explaining that?" >> >> There are two issues we identified at the installer meeting. 1) The >> homepage claims one set of plugins that are pulp2 compatible but doesn't >> clearly state they are for pulp two.2) the pulp3 plugin table is not on the >> home page. >> >> What do you think about consolidating the "plugin list" on the homepage >> and the pulp3 plugins page into one table with two new columns "Pulp 2 >> compatible" and "Pulp 3 compatible" with X's or check mark icons in the >> cells where that compatibility exists? >> >> What do others think also? >> >> [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6658 >> >> Thanks, >> Brian >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Pulp-dev] Consolidating plugin listing on pulpproject.org for user clarity?
Hi Brian, I agree with the problems identified. I'm concerned that the same plugins have a different set of features in Pulp 2 and Pulp 3, e.g, pulp_rpm. Having it just marked as compatible with both Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 might create an assumption that the same features are available for both Pulp 2 and Pulp 3. Some plugins are separated or renamed, it's hard to mark them compatible or not, e.g. Pulp 3 pulp_file should be marked as a part of Pulp 2 pulp_rpm? Pulp 2 pulp_docker - a part of pulp_container in Pulp 3? I wonder if we should keep pulp 2 and pulp 3 plugins separate, maybe on the same page but not in the same table? Alternatively, many footnotes with clarifications might help. Thanks, Tanya On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:37 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Melanie, > > I'm sending via pulp-dev for more visibility, but I wanted to see what you > think specifically. Recently a user gave us feedback via an issue on Pulp 3 > pain points for usage [0]. A lot of it is code and docs, and we're working > to address those, but the last bullet says: > > "On the project page you tells that Pulp can manage plainty of repo type, > but in fact if you take a fresh version only few plugins are working. Is > there at least a compatibility/status matrix explaining that?" > > There are two issues we identified at the installer meeting. 1) The > homepage claims one set of plugins that are pulp2 compatible but doesn't > clearly state they are for pulp two.2) the pulp3 plugin table is not on the > home page. > > What do you think about consolidating the "plugin list" on the homepage > and the pulp3 plugins page into one table with two new columns "Pulp 2 > compatible" and "Pulp 3 compatible" with X's or check mark icons in the > cells where that compatibility exists? > > What do others think also? > > [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6658 > > Thanks, > Brian > > ___ > 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] Consolidating plugin listing on pulpproject.org for user clarity?
Melanie, I'm sending via pulp-dev for more visibility, but I wanted to see what you think specifically. Recently a user gave us feedback via an issue on Pulp 3 pain points for usage [0]. A lot of it is code and docs, and we're working to address those, but the last bullet says: "On the project page you tells that Pulp can manage plainty of repo type, but in fact if you take a fresh version only few plugins are working. Is there at least a compatibility/status matrix explaining that?" There are two issues we identified at the installer meeting. 1) The homepage claims one set of plugins that are pulp2 compatible but doesn't clearly state they are for pulp two.2) the pulp3 plugin table is not on the home page. What do you think about consolidating the "plugin list" on the homepage and the pulp3 plugins page into one table with two new columns "Pulp 2 compatible" and "Pulp 3 compatible" with X's or check mark icons in the cells where that compatibility exists? What do others think also? [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6658 Thanks, Brian ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
