Austin and Jeff,
Thanks for the responses. I am happy with moving forward and opening an
issue in redmine for this change
I think I am +0 on dropping the fields. However, if we start to get
complaints from our users, I think we should consider adding them back.
David
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at
I spoke with daviddavis about this and I would like to narrow the scope a
bit. This discussion should be limited to endpoints that deploy tasks. The
possibility for collisions that David pointed out regarding
v3/content// is real, but should be discussed separately because
Content objects should
On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 15:53 -0400, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> Here is one final feature that was added as a dev-freeze exception through
> discussion with rpm plugin devs and @pcreech:
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3444 It is merged, tested, and ready to go.
>
> @pcreech can you ack when
Mihai, I believe your changes made it into 2.16.0.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Mihai Ibanescu
wrote:
> Does that mean that https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1093 did not
> make the cut?
>
> I think it would be a shame for that to be pushed to 2.17. But I'm
I should clarify tha my main concern with regards to #2921 is to have *any*
code in place that configures web serves for Pulp 3. Publicising it is a
nice thing too, but at this point in time, my target audience is developers
and QE. On a related note, references to Ansible were dropped from the
Thank you both for the feedback. I share the concern that we may run out of
NEW items. I added a monday meeting agenda item for us to check-in on if
additional work needs to be added then. I'm wanting to defer adding more
today with the hope that sprint 34 will get to 100% modified and will have
I have an amendment to this proposal. Instead of namespacing just the
plugin task routes, I’d propose we namespace all plugin routes. Thus all
plugin routes would be namespaced under something like
“/api/v3/plugin//“. For example, “/api/v3/content/file/” gets
moved to
I just want to point out that we only have 4 NEW non-plugin issues on the
sprint and 2 weeks left. If we remove these three issues, then we’ll only
have 2 pulpcore issues left.
I’m not opposed to removing these issues but we should maybe consider
adding a few.
David
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at
#2988 was automatically moved to srpint 34 because it was in assigned state
and the assignee was not present on the planning so we moved it forward and
let the decision up to the assignee whether to continue to work on this or
drop form the sprint.
Since you're just unassigned it i think we can
Does that mean that https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1093 did not make
the cut?
I think it would be a shame for that to be pushed to 2.17. But I'm biased
since it's my code :-)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Tatiana Tereshchenko
wrote:
> The code for 2.16.0 is now
In pulp3, users need to keep track for a number of things. For example,
without auto publish, users need to keep track of which importer(s) and
publishers need to be used for sync/publish workflows. I fully expect
that users using the API will be maintaining some kind of
I didn't get a chance until now to look at the sprint 34 items in a
detailed way. I want us to consider removing three of them from the sprint.
The reasoning is that these areas of work are not part of the pulp3 core
beta deliverables.
Exception when raising a user-Defined Exception that has a
Here is one final feature that was added as a dev-freeze exception through
discussion with rpm plugin devs and @pcreech: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/
3444 It is merged, tested, and ready to go.
@pcreech can you ack when pulp/pulp_rpm:2.16-release is rebased?
The query now contains 10 items:
I reviewed this proposal with Austin, mainly from the perspective of an end
user. In my opinion, this proposal is a good one. I find the semantics
intuitive and I think they do a good job of adhering to the Richardson
Maturity Model
14 matches
Mail list logo