Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Tatiana Tereshchenko]

Vote is closed. Thanks for all the comments and replies.

It seems like everyone is happy with service names in Pulp3, so no changes
will be made there.
For Pulp2 changes, follow this task [0] if interested.

Thank you,
Tanya

[0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4554

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:24 PM Ina Panova  wrote:

> +1 to keep current pulp3 service names
> +1 to rename pulp2 service names
>
> Thank you for putting this email together, very clear and straight to the
> point!
>
> ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 19:13 David Davis :
>
>> +1 to option 2.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi everyone,

 We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on
 the naming of the services.

 To summarize the thread, our options:

- Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
   - didn't meet any support
   - let's drop this option
   - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
   - got support from the majority
   - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside
   of this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed and 
 they
   have enough time to test it for pulp2
   - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
   - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly
names for Pulp3 services
   - barely discussed
   - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names

 Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2.
 Details will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I
 misinterpreted any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change
 the names in pulp2.

 To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
 vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till
 Friday, March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
 Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
 (reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
 decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
 The current ones are:

- pulp-resource-manager
- pulp-worker
- pulp-content-app


 I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.

 Thank you,
 Tanya




 On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha  wrote:

> I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on
> Pulp2 as we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next 
> few
> years :) also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a
> plus.
>
> But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern
> as we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.
>
> pulpcore-resource-manager
> pulpcore-worker
> pulpcore-content-app
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing
>> the confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. 
>> The
>> problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus 
>> only
>> differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. 
>> Option 3
>> would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
>> entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:
>>
>>  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager,
>> pulp-tasking-manager, pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
>>  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
>> pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling
>>
>> This option still requires developers and operates with both to
>> remember which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more
>> obvious given the complete naming difference than remembering which is 
>> the
>> hyphen and which is the underscore release.
>>
>> Let the bike shedding begin!
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the
>>> future without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older
>>> bits and keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for
>>> Pulp 3+.
>>>
>>> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2
>>> in a Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as 
>>> soon
>>> as possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a 
>>> minimal
>>> impact.
>>>
>>> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>> 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Ina Panova]

+1 to keep current pulp3 service names
+1 to rename pulp2 service names

Thank you for putting this email together, very clear and straight to the
point!

ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 19:13 David Davis :

> +1 to option 2.
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on
>>> the naming of the services.
>>>
>>> To summarize the thread, our options:
>>>
>>>- Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>>   - didn't meet any support
>>>   - let's drop this option
>>>   - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>>   - got support from the majority
>>>   - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
>>>   this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed and 
>>> they have
>>>   enough time to test it for pulp2
>>>   - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
>>>   - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names
>>>for Pulp3 services
>>>   - barely discussed
>>>   - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names
>>>
>>> Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2.
>>> Details will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I
>>> misinterpreted any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change
>>> the names in pulp2.
>>>
>>> To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
>>> vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till
>>> Friday, March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
>>> Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
>>> (reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
>>> decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
>>> The current ones are:
>>>
>>>- pulp-resource-manager
>>>- pulp-worker
>>>- pulp-content-app
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha  wrote:
>>>
 I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2
 as we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years
 :) also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.

 But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern
 as we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.

 pulpcore-resource-manager
 pulpcore-worker
 pulpcore-content-app



 On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:

> I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
> confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
> problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
> differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 
> 3
> would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
> entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:
>
>  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager,
> pulp-tasking-manager, pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
>  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
> pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling
>
> This option still requires developers and operates with both to
> remember which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more
> obvious given the complete naming difference than remembering which is the
> hyphen and which is the underscore release.
>
> Let the bike shedding begin!
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the
>> future without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older
>> bits and keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for
>> Pulp 3+.
>>
>> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in
>> a Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
>> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
>> impact.
>>
>> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
>>> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear
>>> distinction of legacy version.
>>> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones
>>> unchanged and more importantly without version in the name.
>>> -0 to make names configurable.
>>>
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[David Davis]

+1 to option 2.

David


On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on
>> the naming of the services.
>>
>> To summarize the thread, our options:
>>
>>- Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>   - didn't meet any support
>>   - let's drop this option
>>   - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>   - got support from the majority
>>   - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
>>   this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed and they 
>> have
>>   enough time to test it for pulp2
>>   - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
>>   - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names
>>for Pulp3 services
>>   - barely discussed
>>   - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names
>>
>> Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2.
>> Details will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I
>> misinterpreted any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change
>> the names in pulp2.
>>
>> To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
>> vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till Friday,
>> March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
>> Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
>> (reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
>> decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
>> The current ones are:
>>
>>- pulp-resource-manager
>>- pulp-worker
>>- pulp-content-app
>>
>>
>> I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Tanya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha  wrote:
>>
>>> I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2
>>> as we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years
>>> :) also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.
>>>
>>> But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern
>>> as we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.
>>>
>>> pulpcore-resource-manager
>>> pulpcore-worker
>>> pulpcore-content-app
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>>
 I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
 confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
 problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
 differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
 would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
 entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:

  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager,
 pulp-tasking-manager, pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
 pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling

 This option still requires developers and operates with both to
 remember which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more
 obvious given the complete naming difference than remembering which is the
 hyphen and which is the underscore release.

 Let the bike shedding begin!

 On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:

> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the
> future without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older
> bits and keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for
> Pulp 3+.
>
> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in
> a Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
> impact.
>
> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
>> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear
>> distinction of legacy version.
>> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones
>> unchanged and more importantly without version in the name.
>> -0 to make names configurable.
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
>>> have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 
>>> 3.
>>> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
>>> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is 
>>> the
>>> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
>>> 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Daniel Alley]

+1

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on
> the naming of the services.
>
> To summarize the thread, our options:
>
>- Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>   - didn't meet any support
>   - let's drop this option
>   - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>   - got support from the majority
>   - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
>   this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed and they 
> have
>   enough time to test it for pulp2
>   - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
>   - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names
>for Pulp3 services
>   - barely discussed
>   - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names
>
> Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2. Details
> will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I misinterpreted
> any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change the names in
> pulp2.
>
> To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
> vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till Friday,
> March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
> Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
> (reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
> decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
> The current ones are:
>
>- pulp-resource-manager
>- pulp-worker
>- pulp-content-app
>
>
> I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.
>
> Thank you,
> Tanya
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha  wrote:
>
>> I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2
>> as we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years
>> :) also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.
>>
>> But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern as
>> we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.
>>
>> pulpcore-resource-manager
>> pulpcore-worker
>> pulpcore-content-app
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
>>> confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
>>> problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
>>> differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
>>> would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
>>> entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:
>>>
>>>  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager,
>>> pulp-tasking-manager, pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
>>>  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
>>> pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling
>>>
>>> This option still requires developers and operates with both to remember
>>> which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more obvious given
>>> the complete naming difference than remembering which is the hyphen and
>>> which is the underscore release.
>>>
>>> Let the bike shedding begin!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>>
 My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the
 future without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older
 bits and keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for
 Pulp 3+.

 As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
 Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
 possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
 impact.

 is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
 ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction
> of legacy version.
> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones
> unchanged and more importantly without version in the name.
> -0 to make names configurable.
>
> Tanya
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>
>> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
>> have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 
>> 3.
>> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
>> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is 
>> the
>> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
>> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less
>> variation in naming conventions.
>> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will
>> lock services names to 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Tatiana Tereshchenko]

Hi everyone,

We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on the
naming of the services.

To summarize the thread, our options:

   - Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
  - didn't meet any support
  - let's drop this option
  - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
  - got support from the majority
  - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
  this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed
and they have
  enough time to test it for pulp2
  - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
  - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names for
   Pulp3 services
  - barely discussed
  - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names

Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2. Details
will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I misinterpreted
any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change the names in
pulp2.

To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till Friday,
March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
(reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
The current ones are:

   - pulp-resource-manager
   - pulp-worker
   - pulp-content-app


I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.

Thank you,
Tanya




On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha  wrote:

> I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2 as
> we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years :)
> also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.
>
> But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern as
> we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.
>
> pulpcore-resource-manager
> pulpcore-worker
> pulpcore-content-app
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
>> confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
>> problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
>> differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
>> would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
>> entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:
>>
>>  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager, pulp-tasking-manager,
>> pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
>>  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
>> pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling
>>
>> This option still requires developers and operates with both to remember
>> which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more obvious given
>> the complete naming difference than remembering which is the hyphen and
>> which is the underscore release.
>>
>> Let the bike shedding begin!
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future
>>> without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and
>>> keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+.
>>>
>>> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
>>> Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
>>> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
>>> impact.
>>>
>>> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
 +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
 It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction
 of legacy version.
 I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones
 unchanged and more importantly without version in the name.
 -0 to make names configurable.

 Tanya

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:

> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
> have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3.
> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is 
> the
> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less
> variation in naming conventions.
> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will
> lock services names to Pulp version.
>
> @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make
> only the hyphens change.
> @asmacdo  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i
> think this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Bruno Rocha]

I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2 as
we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years :)
also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.

But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern as
we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.

pulpcore-resource-manager
pulpcore-worker
pulpcore-content-app



On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:

> I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
> confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
> problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
> differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
> would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
> entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:
>
>  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager, pulp-tasking-manager,
> pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
>  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
> pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling
>
> This option still requires developers and operates with both to remember
> which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more obvious given
> the complete naming difference than remembering which is the hyphen and
> which is the underscore release.
>
> Let the bike shedding begin!
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future
>> without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and
>> keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+.
>>
>> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
>> Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
>> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
>> impact.
>>
>> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
>>> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction
>>> of legacy version.
>>> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones unchanged
>>> and more importantly without version in the name.
>>> -0 to make names configurable.
>>>
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>>
 +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
 have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3.
 As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
 but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the
 version we are supporting the upgrade from.
 +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less variation
 in naming conventions.
 +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will lock
 services names to Pulp version.

 @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make only
 the hyphens change.
 @asmacdo  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i
 think this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429

 
 Regards,

 Ina Panova
 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."


 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri 
 wrote:

> I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc
> notes in, I don't see it as a problem.
>
> Matt P.
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan  wrote:
>
>> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting
>> for Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern
>> to my knowledge.
>>
>> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david
>> pointed out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be 
>> the
>> least invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us
>> feedback that the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I
>> agree with his observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future
>> proofed solution. I would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in
>> the short term because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived
>> (ironically for the same reasons you noted.)
>>
>> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you
>> suggest any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern 
>> about
>> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
>> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
>> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Eric Helms]

I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:

 * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager, pulp-tasking-manager,
pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
 * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling

This option still requires developers and operates with both to remember
which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more obvious given
the complete naming difference than remembering which is the hyphen and
which is the underscore release.

Let the bike shedding begin!

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:

> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future
> without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and
> keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+.
>
> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
> Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
> impact.
>
> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
>> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction of
>> legacy version.
>> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones unchanged
>> and more importantly without version in the name.
>> -0 to make names configurable.
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
>>> have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3.
>>> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
>>> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the
>>> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
>>> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less variation
>>> in naming conventions.
>>> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will lock
>>> services names to Pulp version.
>>>
>>> @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make only
>>> the hyphens change.
>>> @asmacdo  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i think
>>> this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429
>>>
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ina Panova
>>> 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."
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc
 notes in, I don't see it as a problem.

 Matt P.

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan  wrote:

> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting
> for Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern
> to my knowledge.
>
> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david
> pointed out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the
> least invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us
> feedback that the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I
> agree with his observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future
> proofed solution. I would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in
> the short term because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived
> (ironically for the same reasons you noted.)
>
> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you
> suggest any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
> there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
> clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
> this.)
>
> -Robin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring 
> wrote:
>
>> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on
>> Pulp3?
>>
>> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems
>> strange to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and 
>> should
>> be making minimal changes.
>>
>> Do we know all the impacts that 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Brian Herring]

All:

Replied on a different list.

Thanks!


BRIAN HERRING

QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE

Red Hat



100 East Davie Street

Raleigh, NC, 27601

bherr...@redhat.comM: +19193238427 IM: bherring



On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:51 AM Eric Helms  wrote:

> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future
> without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and
> keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+.
>
> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
> Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
> impact.
>
> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
>> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction of
>> legacy version.
>> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones unchanged
>> and more importantly without version in the name.
>> -0 to make names configurable.
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
>>> have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3.
>>> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
>>> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the
>>> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
>>> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less variation
>>> in naming conventions.
>>> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will lock
>>> services names to Pulp version.
>>>
>>> @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make only
>>> the hyphens change.
>>> @asmacdo  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i think
>>> this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429
>>>
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ina Panova
>>> 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."
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc
 notes in, I don't see it as a problem.

 Matt P.

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan  wrote:

> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting
> for Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern
> to my knowledge.
>
> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david
> pointed out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the
> least invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us
> feedback that the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I
> agree with his observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future
> proofed solution. I would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in
> the short term because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived
> (ironically for the same reasons you noted.)
>
> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you
> suggest any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
> there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
> clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
> this.)
>
> -Robin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring 
> wrote:
>
>> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on
>> Pulp3?
>>
>> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems
>> strange to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and 
>> should
>> be making minimal changes.
>>
>> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would
>> have on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3,
>> doesn't it  make more sense to make those changes there when the product
>> has yet to be launched?
>>
>> BRIAN HERRING
>>
>> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>> 
>>
>> 100 East Davie Street
>>
>> Raleigh, NC, 27601
>>
>> bherr...@redhat.comM: +19193238427 IM: bherring
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom  wrote:
>>
>>> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause
>>> impacts that we 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Eric Helms]

My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future
without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and
keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+.

As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
impact.

is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
wrote:

> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction of
> legacy version.
> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones unchanged
> and more importantly without version in the name.
> -0 to make names configurable.
>
> Tanya
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>
>> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
>> have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3.
>> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
>> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the
>> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
>> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less variation
>> in naming conventions.
>> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will lock
>> services names to Pulp version.
>>
>> @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make only
>> the hyphens change.
>> @asmacdo  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i think
>> this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429
>>
>> 
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ina Panova
>> 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."
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri  wrote:
>>
>>> I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc
>>> notes in, I don't see it as a problem.
>>>
>>> Matt P.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan  wrote:
>>>
 To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting for
 Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern to my
 knowledge.

 @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david
 pointed out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the
 least invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us
 feedback that the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I
 agree with his observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future
 proofed solution. I would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in
 the short term because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived
 (ironically for the same reasons you noted.)

 @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you
 suggest any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
 longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
 proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
 prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
 there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
 clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
 this.)

 -Robin



 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring 
 wrote:

> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on
> Pulp3?
>
> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems
> strange to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and 
> should
> be making minimal changes.
>
> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would
> have on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3,
> doesn't it  make more sense to make those changes there when the product
> has yet to be launched?
>
> BRIAN HERRING
>
> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE
>
> Red Hat
>
> 
>
> 100 East Davie Street
>
> Raleigh, NC, 27601
>
> bherr...@redhat.comM: +19193238427 IM: bherring
> 
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom  wrote:
>
>> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause
>> impacts that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that 
>> we
>> will spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point 
>> less
>> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in
>>> addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Tatiana Tereshchenko]

+1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction of
legacy version.
I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones unchanged
and more importantly without version in the name.
-0 to make names configurable.

Tanya

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:

> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users have
> upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3. As a
> suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release but
> whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the
> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less variation in
> naming conventions.
> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will lock
> services names to Pulp version.
>
> @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make only
> the hyphens change.
> @asmacdo  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i think
> this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429
>
> 
> Regards,
>
> Ina Panova
> 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."
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri  wrote:
>
>> I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc notes
>> in, I don't see it as a problem.
>>
>> Matt P.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan  wrote:
>>
>>> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting for
>>> Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern to my
>>> knowledge.
>>>
>>> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david
>>> pointed out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the
>>> least invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us
>>> feedback that the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I
>>> agree with his observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future
>>> proofed solution. I would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in
>>> the short term because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived
>>> (ironically for the same reasons you noted.)
>>>
>>> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you
>>> suggest any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
>>> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
>>> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
>>> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
>>> there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
>>> clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
>>> this.)
>>>
>>> -Robin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on
 Pulp3?

 If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems
 strange to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and should
 be making minimal changes.

 Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would
 have on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3,
 doesn't it  make more sense to make those changes there when the product
 has yet to be launched?

 BRIAN HERRING

 QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE

 Red Hat

 

 100 East Davie Street

 Raleigh, NC, 27601

 bherr...@redhat.comM: +19193238427 IM: bherring
 


 On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom  wrote:

> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause impacts
> that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we will
> spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less
> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in
>> addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the
>> hyphen change.
>>
>> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.
>>
>> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with
>> @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so
>> I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
>> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names 
>> in
>> pulp2 ourselves).
>>
>> --Dana
>>
>> Dana Walker
>>
>> Associate Software Engineer
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Ina Panova]

+1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users have
upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3. As a
suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release but
whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the
version we are supporting the upgrade from.
+1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less variation in
naming conventions.
+1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will lock
services names to Pulp version.

@dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make only the
hyphens change.
@asmacdo  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i think
this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429


Regards,

Ina Panova
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."


On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri  wrote:

> I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc notes
> in, I don't see it as a problem.
>
> Matt P.
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan  wrote:
>
>> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting for
>> Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern to my
>> knowledge.
>>
>> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david
>> pointed out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the
>> least invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us
>> feedback that the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I
>> agree with his observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future
>> proofed solution. I would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in
>> the short term because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived
>> (ironically for the same reasons you noted.)
>>
>> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you suggest
>> any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
>> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
>> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
>> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
>> there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
>> clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
>> this.)
>>
>> -Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring  wrote:
>>
>>> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on
>>> Pulp3?
>>>
>>> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems
>>> strange to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and should
>>> be making minimal changes.
>>>
>>> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would
>>> have on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3,
>>> doesn't it  make more sense to make those changes there when the product
>>> has yet to be launched?
>>>
>>> BRIAN HERRING
>>>
>>> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE
>>>
>>> Red Hat
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> 100 East Davie Street
>>>
>>> Raleigh, NC, 27601
>>>
>>> bherr...@redhat.comM: +19193238427 IM: bherring
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom  wrote:
>>>
 I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause impacts
 that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we will
 spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less
 changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.

 On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker  wrote:

> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in
> addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the
> hyphen change.
>
> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.
>
> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with
> @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so
> I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names in
> pulp2 ourselves).
>
> --Dana
>
> Dana Walker
>
> Associate Software Engineer
>
> Red Hat
>
> 
> 
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban 
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to  a
>> minimal version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3.
>>
>> We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp 2.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be
>>> ran side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp 
>>> 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Matt Pusateri]

I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc notes
in, I don't see it as a problem.

Matt P.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan  wrote:

> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting for
> Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern to my
> knowledge.
>
> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david pointed
> out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the least
> invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us feedback that
> the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I agree with his
> observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future proofed solution. I
> would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in the short term
> because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived (ironically for
> the same reasons you noted.)
>
> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you suggest
> any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
> there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
> clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
> this.)
>
> -Robin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring  wrote:
>
>> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on
>> Pulp3?
>>
>> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems strange
>> to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and should be
>> making minimal changes.
>>
>> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would
>> have on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3,
>> doesn't it  make more sense to make those changes there when the product
>> has yet to be launched?
>>
>> BRIAN HERRING
>>
>> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>> 
>>
>> 100 East Davie Street
>>
>> Raleigh, NC, 27601
>>
>> bherr...@redhat.comM: +19193238427 IM: bherring
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom  wrote:
>>
>>> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause impacts
>>> that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we will
>>> spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less
>>> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker  wrote:
>>>
 As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in
 addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the
 hyphen change.

 I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.

 Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with
 @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so
 I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
 customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names in
 pulp2 ourselves).

 --Dana

 Dana Walker

 Associate Software Engineer

 Red Hat

 
 


 On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban 
 wrote:

> I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to  a
> minimal version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3.
>
> We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp 2.
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
>> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
>> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd 
>> resources
>> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
>> can't tell them apart).
>>
>> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
>> situation.
>>
>>
>> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>
>> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>>
>> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>>
>> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd
>> with semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>>
>>
>> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>
>> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>>
>> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
>> onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>>
>> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
>> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>> 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Robin Chan]

To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting for
Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern to my
knowledge.

@bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david pointed
out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the least
invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us feedback that
the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I agree with his
observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future proofed solution. I
would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in the short term
because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived (ironically for
the same reasons you noted.)

@kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you suggest
any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
this.)

-Robin



On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring  wrote:

> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on Pulp3?
>
> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems strange
> to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and should be
> making minimal changes.
>
> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would have
> on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3, doesn't it
> make more sense to make those changes there when the product has yet to be
> launched?
>
> BRIAN HERRING
>
> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE
>
> Red Hat
>
> 
>
> 100 East Davie Street
>
> Raleigh, NC, 27601
>
> bherr...@redhat.comM: +19193238427 IM: bherring
> 
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom  wrote:
>
>> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause impacts
>> that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we will
>> spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less
>> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker  wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in
>>> addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the
>>> hyphen change.
>>>
>>> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.
>>>
>>> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with
>>> @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so
>>> I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
>>> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names in
>>> pulp2 ourselves).
>>>
>>> --Dana
>>>
>>> Dana Walker
>>>
>>> Associate Software Engineer
>>>
>>> Red Hat
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>>>
 I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to  a minimal
 version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3.

 We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp 2.

 On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd 
> resources
> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
> can't tell them apart).
>
> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
> situation.
>
>
> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>
> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>
> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>
>
> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>
> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
> onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>
> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
> ___
> 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] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Brian Herring]

Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on Pulp3?

If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems strange
to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and should be
making minimal changes.

Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would have
on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3, doesn't it
make more sense to make those changes there when the product has yet to be
launched?

BRIAN HERRING

QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE

Red Hat



100 East Davie Street

Raleigh, NC, 27601

bherr...@redhat.comM: +19193238427 IM: bherring



On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom  wrote:

> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause impacts
> that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we will
> spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less
> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker  wrote:
>
>> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in addition
>> to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the hyphen
>> change.
>>
>> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.
>>
>> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with
>> @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so
>> I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
>> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names in
>> pulp2 ourselves).
>>
>> --Dana
>>
>> Dana Walker
>>
>> Associate Software Engineer
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to  a minimal
>>> version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3.
>>>
>>> We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp 2.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>>
 Howdy,

 In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
 side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
 manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources
 being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
 can't tell them apart).

 I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
 situation.


 Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services

 Example: pulp3-resource-manager

 Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.

 Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
 semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.


 Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-

 Example: pulp2-resource-manager

 Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
 onto their setups or through RPM releases.

 Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
 version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
 ___
 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
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Kersom]

I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause impacts that
we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we will spend
working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less changes in
Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker  wrote:

> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in addition
> to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the hyphen
> change.
>
> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.
>
> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with
> @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so
> I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names in
> pulp2 ourselves).
>
> --Dana
>
> Dana Walker
>
> Associate Software Engineer
>
> Red Hat
>
> 
> 
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>
>> I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to  a minimal
>> version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3.
>>
>> We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp 2.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
>>> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
>>> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources
>>> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
>>> can't tell them apart).
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
>>> situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>>
>>> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>>>
>>> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>>>
>>> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
>>> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>>>
>>>
>>> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>>
>>> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>>>
>>> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
>>> onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>>>
>>> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
>>> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Dana Walker]

As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in addition
to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the hyphen
change.

I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.

Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with
@ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so
I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names in
pulp2 ourselves).

--Dana

Dana Walker

Associate Software Engineer

Red Hat





On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:

> I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to  a minimal
> version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3.
>
> We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp 2.
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
>> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
>> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources
>> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
>> can't tell them apart).
>>
>> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
>> situation.
>>
>>
>> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>
>> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>>
>> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>>
>> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
>> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>>
>>
>> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>
>> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>>
>> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
>> onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>>
>> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
>> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Eric Helms]

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 12:50 PM Austin Macdonald 
wrote:

> There is some additional work to be done with the installer
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4187#note-3
>
> I've created a new story for the installer to allow a user to override the
> default and specify whatever name they choose for each component.
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497
>

Sorry to be a bit of nacker here, but I don't want to set my own naming
conventions. And, as a project, I wouldn't want users overriding that
either. The less opinionated you are the harder the supportability, as you
are introducing variations that any user or developer has to parse to
understand the issue.

The changing of Pulp 2's service names seems the least invasive as they
would be changed in the RPM spec files and automatically updated when that
version was installed. This gives Pulp 3+ the cleanest flexibility going
forward and more clearly identifies legacy components.


>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 12:32 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> If I read the solution as hyphens vs underscores as implemented in
>> ansible-pulp3 today then yes, it's still very confusing which is which.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019, 12:25 PM David Davis  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with rchan and am thus leaning towards option 2.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear though, we renamed pulp 3’s services recently to avoid
>>> conflict[0] with pulp 2. However, it sounds like this solution isn’t good
>>> enough as it’s hard for users to identify which set of services go with
>>> which version of pulp?
>>>
>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4187
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:55 AM Robin Chan  wrote:
>>>
 See comment below on option 2.

 On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd 
> resources
> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
> can't tell them apart).
>
> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
> situation.
>
>
> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>
> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>
> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>
>
> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>
> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
> onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>
> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>
 [rchan] My expectation is that we will levy this requirement on
 upgrades/migrations anyway, so I don't think this con applies for this
 suggestion.

 ___
> 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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Eric Helms]

If I read the solution as hyphens vs underscores as implemented in
ansible-pulp3 today then yes, it's still very confusing which is which.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019, 12:25 PM David Davis  wrote:

> I agree with rchan and am thus leaning towards option 2.
>
> Just to be clear though, we renamed pulp 3’s services recently to avoid
> conflict[0] with pulp 2. However, it sounds like this solution isn’t good
> enough as it’s hard for users to identify which set of services go with
> which version of pulp?
>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4187
>
> David
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:55 AM Robin Chan  wrote:
>
>> See comment below on option 2.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
>>> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
>>> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources
>>> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
>>> can't tell them apart).
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
>>> situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>>
>>> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>>>
>>> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>>>
>>> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
>>> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>>>
>>>
>>> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>>
>>> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>>>
>>> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
>>> onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>>>
>>> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
>>> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>>>
>> [rchan] My expectation is that we will levy this requirement on
>> upgrades/migrations anyway, so I don't think this con applies for this
>> suggestion.
>>
>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[David Davis]

I agree with rchan and am thus leaning towards option 2.

Just to be clear though, we renamed pulp 3’s services recently to avoid
conflict[0] with pulp 2. However, it sounds like this solution isn’t good
enough as it’s hard for users to identify which set of services go with
which version of pulp?

[0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4187

David


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:55 AM Robin Chan  wrote:

> See comment below on option 2.
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
>> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
>> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources
>> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
>> can't tell them apart).
>>
>> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
>> situation.
>>
>>
>> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>
>> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>>
>> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>>
>> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
>> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>>
>>
>> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>
>> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>>
>> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
>> onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>>
>> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
>> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>>
> [rchan] My expectation is that we will levy this requirement on
> upgrades/migrations anyway, so I don't think this con applies for this
> suggestion.
>
> ___
>> 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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Robin Chan]

See comment below on option 2.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources
> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
> can't tell them apart).
>
> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
> situation.
>
>
> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>
> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>
> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>
>
> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>
> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users onto
> their setups or through RPM releases.
>
> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>
[rchan] My expectation is that we will levy this requirement on
upgrades/migrations anyway, so I don't think this con applies for this
suggestion.

___
> 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] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Eric Helms]

Howdy,

In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources
being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
can't tell them apart).

I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
situation.


Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services

Example: pulp3-resource-manager

Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.

Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.


Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-

Example: pulp2-resource-manager

Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users onto
their setups or through RPM releases.

Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2 version
to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev