[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.9.1 is generally available

Pulpcore 3.9.1 has been released to PyPI[0]. Client libraries are available on PyPI[1] and rubygems.org[2]. This release addresses a single bug that was encountered by users that set a custom CHUNKED_UPLOAD_DIR setting. The value for this setting must now be a relative path inside MEDIA_ROOT[3].

Re: [Pulp-dev] Backports and LTS

+1 to fully automating the release pipeline. This would allow us to do as many releases as needed to satisfy all stakeholders. On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:11 PM David Davis wrote: > There are some great features that have been added to Github Actions--one > of them being manual triggers for

[Pulp-dev] daily testing of released plugins with next Y release of pulpcore

The plugin-template can now be used to enable a cron job that tests the latest release of a plugin on PyPI against the master branch of pulpcore. This job will identify when there is a compatibility issue with a future release of pulpcore. The 'test_released_plugin_with_next_pulpcore_release'

Re: [Pulp-dev] moving plugin docs to docs.pulpproject.org

I trigger the docs job? > Is it a part of the release workflow only or is there a way for me to > publish docs before a release? > > Tanya > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 8:45 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> Each plugin repository in the Pulp organization on GitHub has been >&

[Pulp-dev] moving plugin docs to docs.pulpproject.org

Each plugin repository in the Pulp organization on GitHub has been configured with a PULP_DOCS_KEY secret that enables publishing docs to docs.pulpproject.org/. Each plugin should enable publishing docs to docs.pulpproject.org by setting 'publish_docs_to_pulpprojectdotorg' to true in the

Re: [Pulp-dev] check-manifest

Plugins will also need to add 'check-manifest' to their dev_requirements.txt. On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:38 AM David Davis wrote: > Due to problems with files missing from Pulp 3 packages, the build team > has asked us to use a tool called check-manifest[0] to ensure that files > are not being

[Pulp-dev] namespacing base_path of Distributions

The container plugin is introducing a 'namespace' resource that will be associated with Distributions. The name of the namespace will be used as the first part of the base_path for the ContainerDistribution. Role based access control will allow users to create content under their own namespace and

Re: [Pulp-dev] sphinx theme for docs.pulpproject.org

Engineer, Pulp Project > Red Hat Brazil - Latam <https://www.redhat.com/> > +55 11 999652368 > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:48 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> We are slowly rolling out plugin docs to docs.pulpproject.org. At this >> time pulp_file and pulp

Re: [Pulp-dev] sphinx theme for docs.pulpproject.org

hub.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/d31eb22453cd2d56b43ed884ec193fa166cafe62/docs/conf.py#L116 > > +1 to making everything consistent with pulpcore. > quba42 > -- > *From:* pulp-dev-boun...@redhat.com on > behalf of Dennis Kliban > *Sent:* 24 Septemb

Re: [Pulp-dev] sphinx theme for docs.pulpproject.org

docs domain" > > Would this be hard to achieve? > We would need to find a Jekyll theme (pulpproject.org) that is paired with a Sphinx theme (docs.pulpproject.org). This would most likely require us creating something custom for both. Seems like a big effort. > > Ar Déar 24 MFómh 2020

[Pulp-dev] sphinx theme for docs.pulpproject.org

We are slowly rolling out plugin docs to docs.pulpproject.org. At this time pulp_file and pulp_ansible are the only plugins publishing their docs there. What I noticed is that they have completely different themes. We need to pick a single theme to be used by all plugins. Does anyone have

Re: [Pulp-dev] python-nectar 1.6.2 needed

t; Regards, >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Ina Panova >>> > > >> Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>> > > >> g

Re: [Pulp-dev] [CentOS-devel] repo_gpgcheck for centos repos?

At this time Pulp always regenerates the repo metadata. In Pulp 3, we plan to add the ability to mirror the metadata. However, the development of that feature has not started yet. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:02 PM James Cassell wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, at 11:12 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.6.3 is generally available

pulpcore 3.6.3 is available on PyPI[0]. This release fixes a packaging bug[1]. # Installation and Upgrade Users should use the 3.6.3 release of pulp_installer[2] to install or upgrade their installations. This version of the installer will check compatibility of all installed plugins with

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 are Generally Available

Yes, we can do that. On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:04 PM Justin Sherrill wrote: > I discovered this issue with 3.6.2 (and prior) that prevents proper > operation: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7450 > > Would it be possible to get a 3.6.3 i near term? > > Justin > On 9/2/20 5

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 are Generally Available

Pulpcore 3.6.1 was released yesterday, but a bug with the OpenAPI schema was discovered before this announcement could be sent out. This bug has been fixed and pulpcore 3.6.2 is now available also[0]. These releases contain three bug fixes and improvements to documentation. For a list of all

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_deb plugin maintenance meeting

I would like to participate. Can we move the meeting time to 14:00 o'clock CEST ? On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:11 AM Quirin Pamp wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to propose a meeting on handling pulp_deb plugin maintenance. > > I will contact several people individually, that I think should

Re: [Pulp-dev] Name uniqueness problem in Pulp 3 REST API

used for different resource types. So the new >> natrual_key (aka unique_together) would be ["name", "type"]. >> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:55 PM David Davis >> wrote: >> > >> > Agreed. >> > >> > David >> > >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Name uniqueness problem in Pulp 3 REST API

Does anyone else have an opinion? If not, I am going to start by writing a task to remove this name uniqueness constraint for repositories. On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ina Panova wrote: > This name uniqueness problem is extended to remotes and distributions, and > probably some other

Re: [Pulp-dev] AccessPolicy Model Advice ... input needed

Pulp 2 users would definitely be familiar with describing policies in terms of urls. The Pulp 3 REST API already uses the pulp_href field as the primary identifier. You should implement idea 1. On Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 5:45 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I need some design input. To store AccessPolicy

[Pulp-dev] Pulp Container meeting minutes

13 july, 2020 Pulp 3: Token certificate generation needs to be added to the installer and operator - Installer ticket already written - Dkliban to write issue for pulp-operator https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7124 - anything that modifies the token should cause the registry to

[Pulp-dev] Pulp Container meeting minutes

6 july, 2020 Pulp 3: - With rbac we might want to have namespaces as objects to assign permissions to it - Should we validate the relative_path of a distribution to have exactly on “/”? - Dkliban to test that you can docker and podman pull from a

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.5 release is scheduled for July 7

We identified a release blocker during triage[0]. The release is postponed until tomorrow, July 8th. [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7087 On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:53 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > The current plan is to release pulpcore 3.5 on July 7th, 2020. If you want > to have your f

[Pulp-dev] Name uniqueness problem in Pulp 3 REST API

The REST APIs for repositories in Pulp 3 do not allow a name to be reused between repository types. e.g.: A File Repository with name 'test' prevents a user from creating an RPM Repository with name 'test', even though these are two separate APIs. Do you agree that the namespace of one API should

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.5 release is scheduled for July 7

The current plan is to release pulpcore 3.5 on July 7th, 2020. If you want to have your feature or bug fix included, please make sure it gets merged before that day. ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com

[Pulp-dev] upgrade testing meeting minutes

Today we continued the discussion about upgrade testing[0]. The main ideas we discussed revolved around creating a set of tests that each use unique fixture repositories and don't use orphan cleanup between tests. These tests would be run in our regular PR build jobs and would allow us to re-use

Re: [Pulp-dev] Fwd: Status of pulp-python

We recently had an opportunity to devote more resources to the Python plugin. Beta 9 was released earlier today[0]. We are hoping to make a GA release in the near future. [0] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/2020-June/msg1.html On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 3:45 PM Robin Chan wrote: >

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.4.0 release scheduled for May 27th

The pulpcore 3.4.0 release will be published tomorrow to PyPI. On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:55 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > Pulpcore 3.4.0 is scheduled to be released on May 27th. There are > currently 3 issues that have been proposed as blockers for this release[0]. > Please respond to th

[Pulp-dev] upgrade testing meeting minutes

Earlier today we discussed ideas for upgrade testing. The notes were kept here [0]. The summary of the meeting minutes is below. * from which version to which version? * from the latest x.y.z release of pulpcore and plugin being to tested to the master branch of pulpcore and master branch of

[Pulp-dev] Unified CI/CD pipeline

Each release of pulpcore requires a separate release of pulp_installer. In the near future we will also release container images with each new release of pulpcore. Since all of these assets are always released together, they need to be released as part of a single pipeline that only releases all

[Pulp-dev] CI/CD meeting notes

May 20, 2020 - Quay.io was down again on 05-19 - Normal docker client won’t let you use quay.io unless you specify it in image name. - We want to use DockerHub for reliability instead, we are upstream. - CI status check -

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.4.0 release scheduled for May 27th

Pulpcore 3.4.0 is scheduled to be released on May 27th. There are currently 3 issues that have been proposed as blockers for this release[0]. Please respond to this thread with any other issues that should potentially be addressed in this release. [0] https://pulp.plan.io/versions/88

Re: [Pulp-dev] Fwd: Naming/Tagging-Schema for container images

a variable number of plugins. We could create tags that include the name of all the plugins inside the container. So the user would be able to run a command such as podman run pulp/pulp:3.3.1-ansible-container-file-maven-rpm or podman run pulp/pulp:3.3.1-ansible0.2.0b12-container1.3.0-file0.3.0-m

Re: [Pulp-dev] [Pulp-list] Bug triage is moving to #pulp-meeting on Freenode

e helpful. > > David > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:21 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> Starting on May 19th, bug triage will be held in #pulp-meeting on >> Freenode[0]. >> >> [0] https://pulpproject.org/get_involved/#meetings >> __

Re: [Pulp-dev] Naming/Tagging-Schema for container images

Long term, I would like to stop publishing container images based on Fedora. Images for production use should be built on top of CentOS 8 stream[0]. The name of the image repository should not contain the OS name. Each 3.y release of pulpcore should live in its own repository called

[Pulp-dev] Bug triage is moving to #pulp-meeting on Freenode

Starting on May 19th, bug triage will be held in #pulp-meeting on Freenode[0]. [0] https://pulpproject.org/get_involved/#meetings ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Installer project

I am +1 to creating a new redmine project. I want to point out that we plan to move installer documentation into the main pulpcore docs. Our CI checks for issues associated with the appropriate projects. Do that mean we will need to create docs issues in the Pulp project when the docs need to be

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 CLI MVP

pe. > +1 for > pulp rpm content packages > pulp rpm repositories rpm > pulp rpm repositories mirror > ... > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:30 PM David Davis >> wrote: >> >>> Matthias a

Re: [Pulp-dev] signing service interface

ls/content.py#L377 > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:51 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 3:39 AM Quirin Pamp wrote: >> >>> Could you explain the reasoning for a 'public.key' file? >>> >> >> The public.key file is the file that a yum/d

Re: [Pulp-dev] the "relative path" problem

is problem in a document[0]. It is a complicated change and the document does not fully capture the plan yet. Feedback and help on the design is welcome. [0] https://hackmd.io/02KBjCD3Q0WP7p4ALwzhJw?edit On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 4:11 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > I've reached two conclusions while try

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 CLI MVP

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:30 PM David Davis wrote: > Matthias and I met today to go over some plans for a prototype. I wrote > some notes[0] down. As part of the prototype, we'd propose two deliverables > (one this week and one next week): > > 1. A set of ~2-3 click commands that use the

Re: [Pulp-dev] signing service interface

tation. ;-) > I'll take a look at this PR. > > Quirin > ------ > *From:* pulp-dev-boun...@redhat.com on > behalf of Dennis Kliban > *Sent:* 04 May 2020 22:50:54 > *To:* Pulp-dev > *Subject:* [Pulp-dev] signing service interface > > The Plugin

[Pulp-dev] signing service interface

The Plugin API of Signing Services in Pulp 3 is too vague. I came to this conclusion while working with @lieter on an RPM plugin feature that allows users to download a repo config file from a distribution[0]. As a result, we decided to document that the signing service needs to produce a public

[Pulp-dev] improving functional tests

I've written an issue to track improvements to functional tests[0]. Please provide feedback on this thread or on the issue directly. [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6637 ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com

Re: [Pulp-dev] the "relative path" problem

I've reached two conclusions while trying to formulate a solution: This problem needs to be solved at the repository version level. Repository membership needs to be tracked at the artifact level, and not content level as it is now. On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:11 PM Daniel Alley wrote: > Cool,

Re: [Pulp-dev] serializers in pulp 3 can't use write_only fields

> Senior 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 Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 5:24 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: >> >>> Today during open

[Pulp-dev] unit test runners disabled for Pulp 2 repositories

Due to challenges with maintaining infrastructure used to run unit tests for Pulp 2 Pull Requests on GitHub, I've disabled the requirement for these checks to pass before merging. I do not anticipate any challenges with manually testing PRs due to the low volume of changes in those repos.

[Pulp-dev] serializers in pulp 3 can't use write_only fields

Today during open floor we concluded that write_only fields cannot be used in serializers because any automated handling of them during OpenAPI schema generation will cause mutations to the schema which will result in backwards incompatible changes to our bindings users. This change should only

[Pulp-dev] plugin API improvement for custom content handlers

I've been working with @lieter on adding a new feature to the RPM plugin[0]. We've identified that an improvement in pulpcore would make for a better user experience. I've written up the pulpcore improvement in a separate story[1]. I am looking for feedback on both features. [0]

Re: [Pulp-dev] Turning release notes into user content

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 2:38 PM Melanie Corr wrote: > Hi all, > > As part of the effort to broaden awareness of Pulp and increase > interactions with both current and future community members, I am looking > into increasing frequency of blog posts on the Pulp site. This will also > help with a

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 in One Container

Davis wrote: > +1 from me. @mcorr, thank you for raising this. > > David > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:46 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> That sounds like a great idea. I'll move the git repository under 'pulp' >> organization on GitHub and the same for Docker Hub

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 in One Container

That sounds like a great idea. I'll move the git repository under 'pulp' organization on GitHub and the same for Docker Hub image repository. I'll update this thread when this has been done. On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:26 AM Melanie Corr wrote: > Hi all, > > I was reading Dennis Kilban's blog

[Pulp-dev] SUSE repositories in Pulp

During last week's RPM team meeting, a concern was raised about using the same repository type for both Red Hat and SUSE repositories. Since that meeting I have only been able to identify a single difference between the two repositories. SUSE repos can contain the same package in two different

Re: [Pulp-dev] Should signing service be associated with Publication or Repository?

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 8:35 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:14 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > > > > RPM plugin allows users to define a signing service per repository. All > publications created from repository versions of that repository are signed > with

Re: [Pulp-dev] Should signing service be associated with Publication or Repository?

also? > On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 23:13:23 -0400 > Dennis Kliban wrote: > > > RPM plugin allows users to define a signing service per repository. > > All publications created from repository versions of that repository > > are signed with that signing service. > > >

[Pulp-dev] Should signing service be associated with Publication or Repository?

RPM plugin allows users to define a signing service per repository. All publications created from repository versions of that repository are signed with that signing service. The Debian plugin requires the user to specify the signing service each time a publication is created. The signing service

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changelog conventions

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:33 PM David Davis wrote: > I want to reopen this thread for discussion as this topic has come up > again this week. I don't think we need very strict or detailed requirements > for changelog messages. But rather, some guidance around things like which > tense to use

Re: [Pulp-dev] [Pulp-list] pulpcore 3.2.0 and pulp_file 0.2.0 releases

pulp_container 1.2.0 has been released[0]. It is compatible with pulpcore 3.2. For a list of all changes please check the changelog[1]. [0]: https://pypi.org/project/pulp-container/1.2.0/ [1] https://pulp-container.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changes.html#id1 On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:02 PM David

Re: [Pulp-dev] Importers/Exporters

ikely Content, Artifacts, ContentArtifacts). > > David > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:13 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> Thanks for all the details. I would like to provide Pulp 3 users with a >> similar feature. In order to do that, the archive produced by Pulp will >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Importers/Exporters

ith pulp3 we would somewhat combine these two > approaches and take the pulp3 generated export file and add in a metadata > file of some sort. > > Justin > On 2/19/20 2:28 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > > Thank you for the details. More questions inline. > > On Wed, Feb 19, 20

Re: [Pulp-dev] Importers/Exporters

changing much for the user, anything additional that > needs to be done in pulp can be done behind the cli/api in katello. Thanks! > > Justin > On 2/19/20 12:52 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > > In Katello that uses Pulp 2, what steps does the user need to take when > imp

Re: [Pulp-dev] Importers/Exporters

In Katello that uses Pulp 2, what steps does the user need to take when importing an export into an air gapped environment? I am concerned about making the process more complicated than what the user is already used to. On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:20 AM David Davis wrote: > Thanks for the

Re: [Pulp-dev] switch from Python to JSON settngs file

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:39 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 9:22 AM Bruno Rocha > wrote: > >> From the issue: >> >> Writing aws_default_acl: None in the pulp_settings variable gets >>> rendered to AWS_DEFAULT_ACL = "None", not

Re: [Pulp-dev] switch from Python to JSON settngs file

ML null values: > https://github.com/rochacbruno/dynaconf/issues/288 > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:57 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> ansible-pulp currently tries to generate a Python settings file.from >> settings provided by the user in the playbook[0]. However, the genera

[Pulp-dev] ansible-pulp pre-install check of plugin version conflicts

Users are able to specify pulpcore and plugin versions that they wish ansible-pulp to install. The plugin versions specified are not always guaranteed to work with the version of pulpcore. As a result, users can end up with broken installations. I've written a story that describes the current plan

[Pulp-dev] switch from Python to JSON settngs file

ansible-pulp currently tries to generate a Python settings file.from settings provided by the user in the playbook[0]. However, the generated Python code is not always syntactically correct[1]. The settings file is generated using a Jinja template. Jinja provides a to_json that can be used to

Re: [Pulp-dev] Importers/Exporters

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 1:11 PM David Davis wrote: > Grant and I met today to discuss importers and exporters[0] and we'd like > some feedback before we proceed with the design. To sum up this feature > briefly: users can export a repository version from one Pulp instance and > import it to

Re: [Pulp-dev] Bindings' limitations

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:04 PM Lubos Mjachky wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > functional tests are currently being refactored to use bindings in various > plugins. This will eventually allow us to query Pulp in a more pythonic way > instead of using raw REST API calls, or pulp_smash utilities. > >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 Applicability Design thoughts (and Katello)

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:31 AM Justin Sherrill wrote: > There have been some design discussions going on around applicability > (https://hackmd.io/ydvHuzXNRA6T9eXx6cqy5A) in pulp3. > > There are some big changes compared to pulp2, including: > > * Package profile, module profile,and repository

Re: [Pulp-dev] Content Signing for Pulp 3.y -- Use Cases

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 4:40 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > I've updated the document[0] with the meeting minutes from December 5. The > full chat logs are here[1]. I would like to host another meeting at 9:30 AM > EST (in your time zone > <https://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1=4460243,100,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Content Signing for Pulp 3.y -- Use Cases

a key signature as additional configuration. [0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HSrRduFYuidhbc8ISjUnkb3IXk6FnJ2iXEqa4vDC-pA/edit# [1] https://pulpadmin.fedorapeople.org/triage/pulp-meeting/2019/pulp-meeting.2019-12-05-14.00.log.html On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 4:44 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Content Signing for Pulp 3.y -- Use Cases

v/2019/pulp-dev.2019-11-26-14.30.log.html On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 8:27 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:59 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> I will be hosting a chat meeting to discuss use cases for signing in Pulp >> 3.y. >> The meeting details and age

Re: [Pulp-dev] Content Signing for Pulp 3.y -- Use Cases

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:59 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > I will be hosting a chat meeting to discuss use cases for signing in Pulp > 3.y. > The meeting details and agenda link are below. Both users and plugin > developers are invited. Please join if you're interested! > > When: W

[Pulp-dev] Content Signing for Pulp 3.y -- Use Cases

I will be hosting a chat meeting to discuss use cases for signing in Pulp 3.y. The meeting details and agenda link are below. Both users and plugin developers are invited. Please join if you're interested! When: Wednesday, November 26 9:30 – 10:30am EST or in your time zone

Re: [Pulp-dev] Solving the "callback problem" ... aka how pulpcore will stop finalizing RepositoryVersion

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Thank you for writing! > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:29 PM Matthias Dellweg wrote: > >> Hi Brian, >> i like the the change in the code flow, but since the >> DeclarativeVersion (in your example) does not create the repository >> version

Re: [Pulp-dev] Repo versions with no changes

+1 to making this change On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:51 PM David Davis wrote: > Currently in pulp, syncs always create repository versions regardless of > whether or not any content changed. One of the tasks[0] for 3.0 GA is to > document this behavior. However, I've heard several complaints about

Re: [Pulp-dev] Repo version validation

The plan outlined in 3541 solves the problem in a way that gives plugin writers a lot of control. +1 to implementing it. On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:23 PM David Davis wrote: > We have a blocker for Pulp 3.0 GA[0] that we need to address soon in order > to let plugins leverage it in their upcoming

Re: [Pulp-dev] [BREAKING] PublishedMetadata

The changes to pulpcore, pulpcore-plugin, and pulp_file have been merged. On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:23 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > On September 25th due to issue #5304[0] we are going to convert > PublishedMetadata into a type of Content. > > The following PRs need review before the

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp-2to3-migrate name changing to pulp-2to3-migration

I renamed the repository on GitHub and made a PR[0] to change the name everywhere in the repo. [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp-2to3-migration/pull/20 On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:14 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > The current name for the migration plugin[0] was chosen when the tooling > was

[Pulp-dev] pulp-2to3-migrate name changing to pulp-2to3-migration

The current name for the migration plugin[0] was chosen when the tooling was going to be a CLI. Now that this is a pulp 3 plugin, it is more appropriate to name it pulp-2to3-migration. I'll be making this change later today. I will then work on publishing both Ruby and Python bindings for it[1].

[Pulp-dev] [BREAKING] PublishedMetadata

On September 25th due to issue #5304[0] we are going to convert PublishedMetadata into a type of Content. The following PRs need review before then: https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-plugin/pull/133 https://github.com/gmbnomis/pulp_cookbook/pull/45 https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/278/

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing one shot upload and copy endpoints

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:12 AM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I want to bring back a variation on upload needs that has come out of > various discussions w/ several plugin developers. I wrote it up here in > more detail and I'll sumarize below: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5403 > > 1. Make all uploads

Re: [Pulp-dev] Announcing the plugin-template change to use containers for CI

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:11 AM Mike DePaulo wrote: > *Why?* > pulp_rpm, and likely other plugins in the future, have C dependencies. > They are often difficult to satisfy on Ubuntu's LTS releases that Travis > provides. Since we are developing containers and a Kubernetes operator > anyway, we

Re: [Pulp-dev] status of the ansible postgres role

Combination of 1 and 2: we need to find a way to collaborate with the author more closely to get outstanding PRs merged. On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 8:28 AM Matthias Dellweg wrote: > Hi all, > in the ansible-pulp role (that is meant to install pulp) we use a role > to install the postgresql

Re: [Pulp-dev] proposal for 2.20.1 release

ng Manager - Pulp > > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> > > IRC: rchan > <https://www.redhat.com> > > > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:07 AM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> I would like to release 2.20.1 with at least 1 bug fix[0] in it. Are >> ther

[Pulp-dev] proposal for 2.20.1 release

I would like to release 2.20.1 with at least 1 bug fix[0] in it. Are there any other bug fixes we would like to include? [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5220 - Dennis ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pagination Requirements and Defaults?

pulpcore/commit/d03d73c9714aa4c21c296b3749c929f688ea2f89 [2] https://www.django-rest-framework.org/api-guide/pagination/#limitoffsetpagination > David > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:01 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:17 PM Brian Bouterse >> wrote: >> >&

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pagination Requirements and Defaults?

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:17 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Recently with pulp_ansible, users were interested in using pagination with > LimitOffsetPagination [0]. Pulp currently defaults to PageNumberPagination. > I looked at our current DRF defaults, and I noticed two things. > > 1. We default to

Re: [Pulp-dev] plugin build failures on Travis

script. [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4770 On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:06 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > Plugins are experiencing build failures on Travis due to a change in the > installer[0]. I have made a PR[1] to update the plugin template with the > needed change. I've also made a P

[Pulp-dev] plugin build failures on Travis

Plugins are experiencing build failures on Travis due to a change in the installer[0]. I have made a PR[1] to update the plugin template with the needed change. I've also made a PR against pulp_ansible to test the fix.[2] Travis is experiencing some problems right now[3] so it is difficult to

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 2 to 3 upgrade experience concerns

-packaging/pull/102 [2] https://github.com/pulp/pulp-packaging/blob/master/packages/pulp/pulp.spec#L513 On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:18 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:12 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 201

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pinning dependencies in Pulp 3

+1 I really like that there is automation to help us update the deps. If the PR from dependabot passes CI, we can just merge. Otherwise we will file an issue. On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:38 AM David Davis wrote: > Recently, Pulp 3 package installs were broken by a new version of DRF > which

Re: [Pulp-dev] Non-source Installs are Broken

+1 On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:40 PM Mike DePaulo wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:05 PM Dana Walker wrote: > >> +1 >> >> a) it's broken >> b) release early, release often >> c) *thumbs up* makes sense to me >> >> Dana Walker >> >> She / Her / Hers >> >> Software Engineer, Pulp Project

Re: [Pulp-dev] [BREAKING] drf 3.10 has breaking changes

drf_yasg 1.16.1 has been released[0]. We can unpin the version of DRF and fix 5125. [0] https://github.com/axnsan12/drf-yasg/releases/tag/1.16.1 On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:51 PM Austin Macdonald wrote: > CI breakage *resolved*. > > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5125 has not been fixed yet, it is

Re: [Pulp-dev] Database support in Pulp 3

I filed an issue[0] to track the effort to remove MariaDB support in Pulp 3. [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5129 On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:01 PM Robin Chan wrote: > +1 > In May, the Foreman community warned us against trying to support many > databases - saying the cost was too high.

[Pulp-dev] plugin_template changes

What's new? - bootstrap.py is now called plugin-template - Plugins now use a template_config.yml to store all the options that they want to use when interacting with plugin-template commands What's gone? - the command line arguments that told bootstrap.py what options to use Find out

Re: [Pulp-dev] Database support in Pulp 3

+1 to drop support for mariadb On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:04 AM Austin Macdonald wrote: > +1 to remove. > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:10 PM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> I believe we have reached a point where Pulp (core and its plugins) can >> no longer support MariaDB due to technical

Re: [Pulp-dev] filtering tasks by reserved resources

> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/master/pulpcore/app/models/task.py#L35 > [1] > https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/blob/ae6be0d89c5df26ac1cfdc876f3b131aa6e9bcf8/pulpcore/app/models/task.py#L229-L246 > > David > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:04 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: &

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 2 + pulp 3 dev environment problem

upport for > httpd? I think the latter makes sense. > > David > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:06 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> Our ansible role[0] for deploying Pulp 2 deploys httpd and has it bind to >> ports 80 and 443. The ansible-pulp roles[1] deploy nginx and have

[Pulp-dev] pulp 2 + pulp 3 dev environment problem

Our ansible role[0] for deploying Pulp 2 deploys httpd and has it bind to ports 80 and 443. The ansible-pulp roles[1] deploy nginx and have it bind to port 80 also. When Pulp 2 is already installed, nginx fails to start. We need to add support to ansible-pulp for deploying Pulp 3 with httpd

  1   2   3   4   >