subject:"Re\: \[Pulp\-dev\] Pulpcore meeting notes"

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

2021-04-23 Thread Melanie Corr

Ar Aoine 23 Aib 2021 ag 14:20, scríobh David Davis :

> I'm interested to hear more about the label. Who sets it? And how is it
> enforced?
>

You can take a look at the label in action here:
https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pulls?q=label%3A%22Demo+worthy%22+is%3Aclosed
I go through this list looking for volunteers for the Foreman community
demo.
The original onus was on the reviewer to assign the label, but that hasn't
always worked so when project maintainers meet to review open PRs, the
label is often assigned at that stage.

>
> Also an observation in Pulp: we tend to merge features right before a
> release. If we want these demo videos to be part of the release
> announcement, we'd either have to hold up the release announcement (not
> great) or release the announcement without the demo videos (which maybe
> defeats the purpose of the demo videos?).
>

This is a good point. Perhaps the point that kills my dream :-)
The original idea of having demos as part of a PR was that there would be
content ready when the PR was raised, so it would be already done in time
for a release.
In theory, I would have had something to work with for the Pulpcore release
announcement.
The long and the short of it is that it would be great to provide more
context and more detail of updates to the community.
If it is not possible to do it on a release basis, or a PR basis, perhaps
focusing on a short list of demo worthy content for communities and
stakeholders would be best?  I could gather the demos and use them for a
community update every few weeks?

>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:48 AM Melanie Corr  wrote:
>
>> Hey David,
>>
>> Ar Déar 22 Aib 2021 ag 16:14, scríobh David Davis > >:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:13 AM Melanie Corr  wrote:
>>>
 Hi !

 Ar Máirt 20 Aib 2021 ag 15:02, scríobh David Davis <
 davidda...@redhat.com>:

> # April 20, 2021
>
> ## Topics
> * Demo videos?
> * Was asked about a demo video for a feature
> * I guess we're not doing these anymore?
> * Fail to record anything due to capacity and commitments
> * Record demos ad hoc?
> * Ask feature writer to record demo when stakeholder asks for
> one
>

 I still think it would be easier for me to share updates and features
 with the community if there were short demos.

>>>
>>> Agree here. I've been trying to record demo videos for new features
>>> whenever I implement them.
>>>
>> Your demos are great. daviddavis++
>>
>>
>>>

 Can I be a stakeholder asking for demos?

>>>
>>> No objection from me.
>>>
>>
>> By me, I should clarify that I mean the community as a stakeholder.
>>
>> As Pulp has a number of projects interacting with it, I try to improve
>> the release announcements so it's easier for stakeholders and the wider
>> community to understand the headline features and the purpose of
>> implementing them in pulpcore. Small demos of the headline features, in
>> many instances, would help.
>>
>>
>>>

 So, should I remove the request for a demo from the contributor
 guidelines?

>>>
>>> At the very least, we should at least keep the information about how to
>>> record a demo video.
>>>
>>
>> Last October/November, we added the need for demos per substantial change
>> to our contribution guidelines. Neither PR contributors nor reviewers seems
>> to have enforced this guideline. I've no doubt that there are a number of
>> valid reasons for this, with the most obvious and ultimate reason being
>> time.
>> I understand that a lot of the features in Pulpcore are probably more
>> demoable when a plugin starts to avail of the features.
>> Perhaps there might be a cleverer way to select which demo would be
>> worthy of contributor time.
>> In Foreman, a PR can have the label "demo-worthy" assigned to it.
>> Would something like this work better?
>>
>>>
>>>

 * Releasing https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
> * Problem: BaseDistribution is deprecated but plugin api is
> missing RepositoryVersionRelatedField
> * 3.12.1 or early/small 3.13.0?
> * bumping minor release would cause extra churn
> * 3.13 - https://pulp.plan.io/versions/188
> * Needs date and release lead (rotation on lines 10-11)
> * make distribution update synchronous
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762
> * rhui would like to dev freeze by may
> * Streamed endpoints
> * https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/562
> * faster
> * query evaluation
> * gunicorn timeout - blocks API worker
> * Review old quarter open issues
> * https://tinyurl.com/pulpq42020
>
> ## Action Items
> * [david] release 3.12.1 with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
> * [dalley] confirm with rhui if https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762 is
> still needed given auto-publish/auto-distribute and on the their Dev 
> Freeze
> timeline
> *

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

2021-04-23 Thread David Davis

I'm interested to hear more about the label. Who sets it? And how is it
enforced?

Also an observation in Pulp: we tend to merge features right before a
release. If we want these demo videos to be part of the release
announcement, we'd either have to hold up the release announcement (not
great) or release the announcement without the demo videos (which maybe
defeats the purpose of the demo videos?).

David


On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:48 AM Melanie Corr  wrote:

> Hey David,
>
> Ar Déar 22 Aib 2021 ag 16:14, scríobh David Davis :
>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:13 AM Melanie Corr  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi !
>>>
>>> Ar Máirt 20 Aib 2021 ag 15:02, scríobh David Davis <
>>> davidda...@redhat.com>:
>>>
 # April 20, 2021

 ## Topics
 * Demo videos?
 * Was asked about a demo video for a feature
 * I guess we're not doing these anymore?
 * Fail to record anything due to capacity and commitments
 * Record demos ad hoc?
 * Ask feature writer to record demo when stakeholder asks for
 one

>>>
>>> I still think it would be easier for me to share updates and features
>>> with the community if there were short demos.
>>>
>>
>> Agree here. I've been trying to record demo videos for new features
>> whenever I implement them.
>>
> Your demos are great. daviddavis++
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Can I be a stakeholder asking for demos?
>>>
>>
>> No objection from me.
>>
>
> By me, I should clarify that I mean the community as a stakeholder.
>
> As Pulp has a number of projects interacting with it, I try to improve the
> release announcements so it's easier for stakeholders and the wider
> community to understand the headline features and the purpose of
> implementing them in pulpcore. Small demos of the headline features, in
> many instances, would help.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> So, should I remove the request for a demo from the contributor
>>> guidelines?
>>>
>>
>> At the very least, we should at least keep the information about how to
>> record a demo video.
>>
>
> Last October/November, we added the need for demos per substantial change
> to our contribution guidelines. Neither PR contributors nor reviewers seems
> to have enforced this guideline. I've no doubt that there are a number of
> valid reasons for this, with the most obvious and ultimate reason being
> time.
> I understand that a lot of the features in Pulpcore are probably more
> demoable when a plugin starts to avail of the features.
> Perhaps there might be a cleverer way to select which demo would be worthy
> of contributor time.
> In Foreman, a PR can have the label "demo-worthy" assigned to it.
> Would something like this work better?
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> * Releasing https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
 * Problem: BaseDistribution is deprecated but plugin api is missing
 RepositoryVersionRelatedField
 * 3.12.1 or early/small 3.13.0?
 * bumping minor release would cause extra churn
 * 3.13 - https://pulp.plan.io/versions/188
 * Needs date and release lead (rotation on lines 10-11)
 * make distribution update synchronous https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762
 * rhui would like to dev freeze by may
 * Streamed endpoints
 * https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/562
 * faster
 * query evaluation
 * gunicorn timeout - blocks API worker
 * Review old quarter open issues
 * https://tinyurl.com/pulpq42020

 ## Action Items
 * [david] release 3.12.1 with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
 * [dalley] confirm with rhui if https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762 is
 still needed given auto-publish/auto-distribute and on the their Dev Freeze
 timeline
 * [david] look at the pulp-oci-images and redmine integration

 David
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Melanie Corr, RHCE
>>>
>>> Community Manager
>>>
>>> Red Hat 
>>>
>>> Remote, Ireland
>>>
>>> mc...@redhat.com
>>> M: +353857774436 IM: mcorr
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>
> --
>
> Melanie Corr, RHCE
>
> Community Manager
>
> Red Hat 
>
> Remote, Ireland
>
> mc...@redhat.com
> M: +353857774436 IM: mcorr
> 
>
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

2021-04-23 Thread Melanie Corr

Hey David,

Ar Déar 22 Aib 2021 ag 16:14, scríobh David Davis :

>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:13 AM Melanie Corr  wrote:
>
>> Hi !
>>
>> Ar Máirt 20 Aib 2021 ag 15:02, scríobh David Davis > >:
>>
>>> # April 20, 2021
>>>
>>> ## Topics
>>> * Demo videos?
>>> * Was asked about a demo video for a feature
>>> * I guess we're not doing these anymore?
>>> * Fail to record anything due to capacity and commitments
>>> * Record demos ad hoc?
>>> * Ask feature writer to record demo when stakeholder asks for
>>> one
>>>
>>
>> I still think it would be easier for me to share updates and features
>> with the community if there were short demos.
>>
>
> Agree here. I've been trying to record demo videos for new features
> whenever I implement them.
>
Your demos are great. daviddavis++


>
>>
>> Can I be a stakeholder asking for demos?
>>
>
> No objection from me.
>

By me, I should clarify that I mean the community as a stakeholder.

As Pulp has a number of projects interacting with it, I try to improve the
release announcements so it's easier for stakeholders and the wider
community to understand the headline features and the purpose of
implementing them in pulpcore. Small demos of the headline features, in
many instances, would help.


>
>>
>> So, should I remove the request for a demo from the contributor
>> guidelines?
>>
>
> At the very least, we should at least keep the information about how to
> record a demo video.
>

Last October/November, we added the need for demos per substantial change
to our contribution guidelines. Neither PR contributors nor reviewers seems
to have enforced this guideline. I've no doubt that there are a number of
valid reasons for this, with the most obvious and ultimate reason being
time.
I understand that a lot of the features in Pulpcore are probably more
demoable when a plugin starts to avail of the features.
Perhaps there might be a cleverer way to select which demo would be worthy
of contributor time.
In Foreman, a PR can have the label "demo-worthy" assigned to it.
Would something like this work better?

>
>
>>
>> * Releasing https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
>>> * Problem: BaseDistribution is deprecated but plugin api is missing
>>> RepositoryVersionRelatedField
>>> * 3.12.1 or early/small 3.13.0?
>>> * bumping minor release would cause extra churn
>>> * 3.13 - https://pulp.plan.io/versions/188
>>> * Needs date and release lead (rotation on lines 10-11)
>>> * make distribution update synchronous https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762
>>> * rhui would like to dev freeze by may
>>> * Streamed endpoints
>>> * https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/562
>>> * faster
>>> * query evaluation
>>> * gunicorn timeout - blocks API worker
>>> * Review old quarter open issues
>>> * https://tinyurl.com/pulpq42020
>>>
>>> ## Action Items
>>> * [david] release 3.12.1 with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
>>> * [dalley] confirm with rhui if https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762 is
>>> still needed given auto-publish/auto-distribute and on the their Dev Freeze
>>> timeline
>>> * [david] look at the pulp-oci-images and redmine integration
>>>
>>> David
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Melanie Corr, RHCE
>>
>> Community Manager
>>
>> Red Hat 
>>
>> Remote, Ireland
>>
>> mc...@redhat.com
>> M: +353857774436 IM: mcorr
>> 
>>
>>

-- 

Melanie Corr, RHCE

Community Manager

Red Hat 

Remote, Ireland

mc...@redhat.com
M: +353857774436 IM: mcorr

___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

2021-04-22 Thread David Davis

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:13 AM Melanie Corr  wrote:

> Hi !
>
> Ar Máirt 20 Aib 2021 ag 15:02, scríobh David Davis  >:
>
>> # April 20, 2021
>>
>> ## Topics
>> * Demo videos?
>> * Was asked about a demo video for a feature
>> * I guess we're not doing these anymore?
>> * Fail to record anything due to capacity and commitments
>> * Record demos ad hoc?
>> * Ask feature writer to record demo when stakeholder asks for one
>>
>
> I still think it would be easier for me to share updates and features with
> the community if there were short demos.
>

Agree here. I've been trying to record demo videos for new features
whenever I implement them.


>
> Can I be a stakeholder asking for demos?
>

No objection from me.


>
> Do they take that long to record with asciinema?
>

No, it's rather simple/easy. Once you get the hang of it, it only takes
about an hour.


>
> So, should I remove the request for a demo from the contributor guidelines?
>

At the very least, we should at least keep the information about how to
record a demo video.


>
> * Releasing https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
>> * Problem: BaseDistribution is deprecated but plugin api is missing
>> RepositoryVersionRelatedField
>> * 3.12.1 or early/small 3.13.0?
>> * bumping minor release would cause extra churn
>> * 3.13 - https://pulp.plan.io/versions/188
>> * Needs date and release lead (rotation on lines 10-11)
>> * make distribution update synchronous https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762
>> * rhui would like to dev freeze by may
>> * Streamed endpoints
>> * https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/562
>> * faster
>> * query evaluation
>> * gunicorn timeout - blocks API worker
>> * Review old quarter open issues
>> * https://tinyurl.com/pulpq42020
>>
>> ## Action Items
>> * [david] release 3.12.1 with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
>> * [dalley] confirm with rhui if https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762 is
>> still needed given auto-publish/auto-distribute and on the their Dev Freeze
>> timeline
>> * [david] look at the pulp-oci-images and redmine integration
>>
>> David
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Melanie Corr, RHCE
>
> Community Manager
>
> Red Hat 
>
> Remote, Ireland
>
> mc...@redhat.com
> M: +353857774436 IM: mcorr
> 
>
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

2021-04-20 Thread Melanie Corr

Hi !

Ar Máirt 20 Aib 2021 ag 15:02, scríobh David Davis :

> # April 20, 2021
>
> ## Topics
> * Demo videos?
> * Was asked about a demo video for a feature
> * I guess we're not doing these anymore?
> * Fail to record anything due to capacity and commitments
> * Record demos ad hoc?
> * Ask feature writer to record demo when stakeholder asks for one
>

I still think it would be easier for me to share updates and features with
the community if there were short demos.
Can I be a stakeholder asking for demos?
Do they take that long to record with asciinema?
So, should I remove the request for a demo from the contributor guidelines?

* Releasing https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
> * Problem: BaseDistribution is deprecated but plugin api is missing
> RepositoryVersionRelatedField
> * 3.12.1 or early/small 3.13.0?
> * bumping minor release would cause extra churn
> * 3.13 - https://pulp.plan.io/versions/188
> * Needs date and release lead (rotation on lines 10-11)
> * make distribution update synchronous https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762
> * rhui would like to dev freeze by may
> * Streamed endpoints
> * https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/562
> * faster
> * query evaluation
> * gunicorn timeout - blocks API worker
> * Review old quarter open issues
> * https://tinyurl.com/pulpq42020
>
> ## Action Items
> * [david] release 3.12.1 with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8578
> * [dalley] confirm with rhui if https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7762 is still
> needed given auto-publish/auto-distribute and on the their Dev Freeze
> timeline
> * [david] look at the pulp-oci-images and redmine integration
>
> David
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>


-- 

Melanie Corr, RHCE

Community Manager

Red Hat 

Remote, Ireland

mc...@redhat.com
M: +353857774436 IM: mcorr

___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

2020-11-24 Thread David Davis

Ah, ok. thank you.

David


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:40 PM Tanya Tereshchenko 
wrote:

> Just because you were not present, I carried over your items which were
> not marked as done and the ones we were not sure about the next steps.
> Feel free to adjust them as you see it.
> We didn't assign anything new to you while you were away :)
>
> Tanya
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:26 PM David Davis  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for taking notes and sorry I couldn't be at the meeting. Can you
>> explain more about the action item to give updates on the tagging story? I
>> was planning on following up on the mailing lists with updates since I
>> don't think the feature will be specific to pulpcore.
>>
>> As for the automatic merge PR (https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737),
>> I wasn't planning on carrying forward an AI for it. I don't have any time
>> to address in the near future but I'm happy to hand it off to someone else
>> if they're interested.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:43 PM Tanya Tereshchenko 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Previous action items
>>>
>>>- [david] To send out last call for feedback before merging
>>>https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737
>>>   - Hold off until after Github Actions move
>>>- [fao89] look at driving forward release automation.
>>>   - Automate post-release steps (branching, bumping to dev
>>>   versions, updating template config, etc)
>>>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7817 (needs grooming, please
>>>   provide feedback)
>>>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7818 (needs grooming)
>>>- [david] a Pulp query that shows issues for pulpcore (filters out
>>>installer, operator, etc)
>>>   - Done: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/issues?query_id=166
>>>- [david] move django fips repo to pulp
>>>   - Done: https://github.com/pulp/django/
>>>- [david] notify pulp-list mailing list of 3.9 release schedule
>>>- [ttereshc] file a task to have task management code manage working
>>>dir
>>>- [david] to start on tagging planning
>>>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7127
>>>   - Started. Met with David Newswanger yesterday.
>>>   - Hope to have draft design by next week.
>>>
>>> Topics
>>>
>>>- two feature plans pending for pulp-dev discussion
>>>   - parallelizing orphan cleanup while avoiding runtime
>>>   errors(ipanova)
>>>  - started writing down a proposal
>>>   - alternate content sources(bmbouter)
>>>  - needs feedback
>>>  - meeting with Katello next week
>>>  - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7832
>>>   - RBAC pulpcore issue
>>>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7710
>>>   - 3.9 blocker
>>>- how to remove a plugin, including the relevant data in the db
>>>   - pulpcore-manager command?
>>>  - checks if the plugin is installed
>>>  - if not, drops all _* tables?
>>>   - use cases
>>>  - migration plugin is the one which everyone would want to
>>>  remove eventually
>>> - it’s needed for katello
>>> - if no general solution is available, we will make some
>>> custom one for the migration plugin only
>>>  - incompatible plugins, one might want to remove one
>>>   - ttereshc to create a task
>>>- Validate existing group on pulpcore?
>>>   -
>>>   
>>> https://github.com/ansible/galaxy_ng/pull/572/files#diff-6b9632eb49cb924f729282743cdac58a36f7625974fef12da2ea7b946ac19866R32
>>>   - pulpcore uses Django Group model, not a custom one, so likely
>>>   no need
>>>  -
>>>  
>>> https://github.com/django/django/blob/7af8f4127397279d19ef7c7899e93018274e2f9b/django/contrib/auth/models.py#L109
>>>   - 3.10 release
>>>   - Tentatively planned for Jan 8? due to holidays. Feedback
>>>   welcome.
>>>  - probably too early, maybe end of January?
>>> - Galaxy NG will likely need a release of pulpcore at the
>>> end of Jan’21
>>> - Conference driven release
>>> - Decide after 3.9 release
>>>  - Needs volunteer to release
>>>- An assumption in the ArtifactSaver stage that a d_artifact always
>>>has a remote.
>>>   -
>>>   
>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/master/pulpcore/plugin/stages/artifact_stages.py#L297
>>>  - Is it intentional?
>>> - Not intentional
>>> - move the check on line 300 couple of lines up
>>>  - Currently causes issues for the migration
>>>  - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7876
>>>
>>> Action items
>>>
>>>- [david] To send out last call for feedback before merging
>>>https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737
>>>   - Hold off until after Github Actions move
>>>- [fao89] look at driving forward release automation.
>>>   - Automate post-release

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

2020-11-24 Thread Tanya Tereshchenko

Just because you were not present, I carried over your items which were not
marked as done and the ones we were not sure about the next steps.
Feel free to adjust them as you see it.
We didn't assign anything new to you while you were away :)

Tanya

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:26 PM David Davis  wrote:

> Thanks for taking notes and sorry I couldn't be at the meeting. Can you
> explain more about the action item to give updates on the tagging story? I
> was planning on following up on the mailing lists with updates since I
> don't think the feature will be specific to pulpcore.
>
> As for the automatic merge PR (https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737),
> I wasn't planning on carrying forward an AI for it. I don't have any time
> to address in the near future but I'm happy to hand it off to someone else
> if they're interested.
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:43 PM Tanya Tereshchenko 
> wrote:
>
>> Previous action items
>>
>>- [david] To send out last call for feedback before merging
>>https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737
>>   - Hold off until after Github Actions move
>>- [fao89] look at driving forward release automation.
>>   - Automate post-release steps (branching, bumping to dev versions,
>>   updating template config, etc)
>>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7817 (needs grooming, please provide
>>   feedback)
>>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7818 (needs grooming)
>>- [david] a Pulp query that shows issues for pulpcore (filters out
>>installer, operator, etc)
>>   - Done: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/issues?query_id=166
>>- [david] move django fips repo to pulp
>>   - Done: https://github.com/pulp/django/
>>- [david] notify pulp-list mailing list of 3.9 release schedule
>>- [ttereshc] file a task to have task management code manage working
>>dir
>>- [david] to start on tagging planning
>>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7127
>>   - Started. Met with David Newswanger yesterday.
>>   - Hope to have draft design by next week.
>>
>> Topics
>>
>>- two feature plans pending for pulp-dev discussion
>>   - parallelizing orphan cleanup while avoiding runtime
>>   errors(ipanova)
>>  - started writing down a proposal
>>   - alternate content sources(bmbouter)
>>  - needs feedback
>>  - meeting with Katello next week
>>  - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7832
>>   - RBAC pulpcore issue
>>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7710
>>   - 3.9 blocker
>>- how to remove a plugin, including the relevant data in the db
>>   - pulpcore-manager command?
>>  - checks if the plugin is installed
>>  - if not, drops all _* tables?
>>   - use cases
>>  - migration plugin is the one which everyone would want to
>>  remove eventually
>> - it’s needed for katello
>> - if no general solution is available, we will make some
>> custom one for the migration plugin only
>>  - incompatible plugins, one might want to remove one
>>   - ttereshc to create a task
>>- Validate existing group on pulpcore?
>>   -
>>   
>> https://github.com/ansible/galaxy_ng/pull/572/files#diff-6b9632eb49cb924f729282743cdac58a36f7625974fef12da2ea7b946ac19866R32
>>   - pulpcore uses Django Group model, not a custom one, so likely no
>>   need
>>  -
>>  
>> https://github.com/django/django/blob/7af8f4127397279d19ef7c7899e93018274e2f9b/django/contrib/auth/models.py#L109
>>   - 3.10 release
>>   - Tentatively planned for Jan 8? due to holidays. Feedback welcome.
>>  - probably too early, maybe end of January?
>> - Galaxy NG will likely need a release of pulpcore at the
>> end of Jan’21
>> - Conference driven release
>> - Decide after 3.9 release
>>  - Needs volunteer to release
>>- An assumption in the ArtifactSaver stage that a d_artifact always
>>has a remote.
>>   -
>>   
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/master/pulpcore/plugin/stages/artifact_stages.py#L297
>>  - Is it intentional?
>> - Not intentional
>> - move the check on line 300 couple of lines up
>>  - Currently causes issues for the migration
>>  - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7876
>>
>> Action items
>>
>>- [david] To send out last call for feedback before merging
>>https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737
>>   - Hold off until after Github Actions move
>>- [fao89] look at driving forward release automation.
>>   - Automate post-release steps (branching, bumping to dev versions,
>>   updating template config, etc)
>>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7817 (needs grooming, please provide
>>   feedback)
>>   -

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

2020-11-24 Thread David Davis

Thanks for taking notes and sorry I couldn't be at the meeting. Can you
explain more about the action item to give updates on the tagging story? I
was planning on following up on the mailing lists with updates since I
don't think the feature will be specific to pulpcore.

As for the automatic merge PR (https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737), I
wasn't planning on carrying forward an AI for it. I don't have any time to
address in the near future but I'm happy to hand it off to someone else if
they're interested.

David


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:43 PM Tanya Tereshchenko 
wrote:

> Previous action items
>
>- [david] To send out last call for feedback before merging
>https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737
>   - Hold off until after Github Actions move
>- [fao89] look at driving forward release automation.
>   - Automate post-release steps (branching, bumping to dev versions,
>   updating template config, etc)
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7817 (needs grooming, please provide
>   feedback)
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7818 (needs grooming)
>- [david] a Pulp query that shows issues for pulpcore (filters out
>installer, operator, etc)
>   - Done: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/issues?query_id=166
>- [david] move django fips repo to pulp
>   - Done: https://github.com/pulp/django/
>- [david] notify pulp-list mailing list of 3.9 release schedule
>- [ttereshc] file a task to have task management code manage working
>dir
>- [david] to start on tagging planning
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7127
>   - Started. Met with David Newswanger yesterday.
>   - Hope to have draft design by next week.
>
> Topics
>
>- two feature plans pending for pulp-dev discussion
>   - parallelizing orphan cleanup while avoiding runtime
>   errors(ipanova)
>  - started writing down a proposal
>   - alternate content sources(bmbouter)
>  - needs feedback
>  - meeting with Katello next week
>  - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7832
>   - RBAC pulpcore issue
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7710
>   - 3.9 blocker
>- how to remove a plugin, including the relevant data in the db
>   - pulpcore-manager command?
>  - checks if the plugin is installed
>  - if not, drops all _* tables?
>   - use cases
>  - migration plugin is the one which everyone would want to
>  remove eventually
> - it’s needed for katello
> - if no general solution is available, we will make some
> custom one for the migration plugin only
>  - incompatible plugins, one might want to remove one
>   - ttereshc to create a task
>- Validate existing group on pulpcore?
>   -
>   
> https://github.com/ansible/galaxy_ng/pull/572/files#diff-6b9632eb49cb924f729282743cdac58a36f7625974fef12da2ea7b946ac19866R32
>   - pulpcore uses Django Group model, not a custom one, so likely no
>   need
>  -
>  
> https://github.com/django/django/blob/7af8f4127397279d19ef7c7899e93018274e2f9b/django/contrib/auth/models.py#L109
>   - 3.10 release
>   - Tentatively planned for Jan 8? due to holidays. Feedback welcome.
>  - probably too early, maybe end of January?
> - Galaxy NG will likely need a release of pulpcore at the end
> of Jan’21
> - Conference driven release
> - Decide after 3.9 release
>  - Needs volunteer to release
>- An assumption in the ArtifactSaver stage that a d_artifact always
>has a remote.
>   -
>   
> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/master/pulpcore/plugin/stages/artifact_stages.py#L297
>  - Is it intentional?
> - Not intentional
> - move the check on line 300 couple of lines up
>  - Currently causes issues for the migration
>  - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7876
>
> Action items
>
>- [david] To send out last call for feedback before merging
>https://github.com/pulp/pulp-ci/pull/737
>   - Hold off until after Github Actions move
>- [fao89] look at driving forward release automation.
>   - Automate post-release steps (branching, bumping to dev versions,
>   updating template config, etc)
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7817 (needs grooming, please provide
>   feedback)
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7818 (needs grooming)
>- [ttereshc] to file a task to implement plugin removal
>- [fao89] to figure out the use case for this fix
>
> https://github.com/ansible/galaxy_ng/pull/572/files#diff-6b9632eb49cb924f729282743cdac58a36f7625974fef12da2ea7b946ac19866R32
>- [david] updates on tagging planning https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7127
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore meeting notes

8 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information