Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

Jeremy, I don't think David was continuing our line of discussion on policy, but rather rebutting the original idea that Github's "required checks" be enforced for all plugins. That goes back to the whole difference between having a policy that requires green tests and making it physically

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

> Regarding the plugin repos, last year we talked about plugins being completely autonomous (aside from abiding by our Code of Conduct). Wouldn’t setting the required checks for projects like pulp_file, pulp_python, pulp_deb, etc violate this autonomy? In other words, shouldn’t we let plugin teams

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

Regarding the plugin repos, last year we talked about plugins being completely autonomous (aside from abiding by our Code of Conduct). Wouldn’t setting the required checks for projects like pulp_file, pulp_python, pulp_deb, etc violate this autonomy? In other words, shouldn’t we let plugin teams

Re: [Pulp-dev] Github Required Checks

> I _do_ think we need to formalize a set of rules about merging, though, and decide how strict we want to be about it. There are a few possibilities: I'm only indirectly affected by this decision, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. 1. I dislike option 1, because it unnecessarily ties

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 distributor use cases

Thanks for the clarity. That explanation definitely helped me wrap my head around it. On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:47 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > I update issue 2894[0] with the new name, Exporter. Can someone please > groom this ticket? > > [0]https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2894 >