[Pulp-dev] Imminent Pulp release engineering changes

This week, i'm looking to do the following: 1) Move the pulp-packaging[0] repo under pulp 2) renaming of pulp_packaging[1] to pulp-ci For 1 to take place, I'll need to work with someone who has access to the pulp organization on github to get this repo moved over. For 2 to take place, I'll

Re: [Pulp-dev] [pulp-dev] pulp3 newest alpha release

Correction: pulp_file version should be 0.0.1a5: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pulp-file/0.0.1a5 Cheers, Bihan On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Bihan Zhang wrote: > Newest release of Pulp3 alpha is now up on PyPI. Only the pulpcore and > pulp_file packages were updated. > >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 - JWT Authorization Header

Thanks @daviddavis. That seems very straightforward. I wrote this issue up here [0]. Please someone ask questions, send ideas/concerns, or click groom. [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3107 On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:53 AM, David Davis wrote: > I dug into this and it

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 - JWT Authorization Header

I dug into this and it looks like it’s as easy as setting JWT_AUTH_HEADER_PREFIX to “Bearer”[0]. So +1 from me. http://getblimp.github.io/django-rest-framework-jwt/#additional-settings David On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at

[Pulp-dev] Redmine Query Cleanup

I deleted the Redmine tag 'Pulp3 Plugin Writer Alpha' from Redmine. It had already served its purpose. For posterity, I am attaching a .csv containing the 32 issues that query was referencing. 30 in MODIFIED 2 in ASSIGNED, both of those are progressing. -Brian "#","Project","Tracker","Parent

[Pulp-dev] [pulp-dev] pulp3 newest alpha release

Newest release of Pulp3 alpha is now up on PyPI. Only the pulpcore and pulp_file packages were updated. https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pulpcore/3.0.0a6 https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pulp-file/0.0.1a4 Changes from last week are: *pulpcore* Reimplements the custom FileStorage backend (

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 - JWT Authorization Header

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > I think it would be ideal if we used 'Bearer: ' instead of 'JWT: '. If you > use our docs, you'll be able to submit your JWT correctly. If you say 'oh I > see Pulp uses JWT' and you follow the example in the official

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 - JWT Authorization Header

I think it would be ideal if we used 'Bearer: ' instead of 'JWT: '. If you use our docs, you'll be able to submit your JWT correctly. If you say 'oh I see Pulp uses JWT' and you follow the example in the official (I think?) JWT site [0] you'll submit a JWT to Pulp using those docs it won't work.