On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:21 PM David Davis wrote:
>
> One of the main reasons we wanted to move off mailing lists is that signing
> up is inconvenient for users that may just want to ask a single question. But
> I agree that Github Discussions is not so great if users want to periodically
>
> new activity?
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 3:13 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:59 AM David Davis wrote:
>> >
>> > Yesterday at open floor, we discussed decommissioning pulp-dev list in
>> > fa
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:59 AM David Davis wrote:
>
> Yesterday at open floor, we discussed decommissioning pulp-dev list in favor
> of of using Github Discussions[0] for developer discussions.
>
> If there are no objections, I plan to decommission the pulp-dev list next
> week.
>
> [0]
haring this use case outline with me. I am hoping we can
> prioritize rbac work like this. It's very important.
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:35 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> Hey Brian,
>>
>> Yes, for sure! I'm basically looking into using RBAC to support a
>> workf
C to various endpoints in
> pulpcore and some plugins, but what I think would be helpful is if we had a
> way to more clearly identify what has RBAC and what doesn't across pulpcore
> and plugins. Would that be helpful?
>
> Thank you,
> Brian
>
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:23 AM Brian Bouterse wrote:
>
> * Making top-level Authentication page in docs
> * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8799
The docs currently mention that RBAC stuff is planned, is there
something that shows the status of that? This is something that I'd
love to see in
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 3:31 AM Matthias Dellweg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:13 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:20 PM Brian Bouterse wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks Quirin for the questions. I put my understanding and
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:20 PM Brian Bouterse wrote:
>
> Thanks Quirin for the questions. I put my understanding and recommendations
> inline. Other devs please share your perspectives and advice, especially if
> they differ from what is written here. More questions and discussion are
>
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 9:22 PM Daniel Alley wrote:
>>
>> RPM and Migration plugin users will need to add this back in at 3.11 upgrade
>> time for your systems to continue working.
>
>
> Just to clarify, this only applies if you are using RPM repositories that use
> MD5 or SHA1 checksums. None
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Davis wrote:
>
> Travis recently announced changes to their plan pricing that will impact
> open-source projects such as Pulp[0]. It's likely that we'll exhaust the
> monthly budget that Travis is going to give OSS projects and we're not sure
> how generous
edirect?authuser=0=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D_hxjqAD8hEI>
> Will fix the video soon.
> You are very welcome to join the meeting rather than the stream.
>
> Melanie
>
> Ar Luan 14 MFómh 2020 ag 14:27, scríobh Neal Gompa :
>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 8:20 AM Fabricio Aguiar
wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> PulpCon is live!
>
> *Streaming:*
> https://stream.meet.google.com/stream/a763e128-14b0-4f31-964f-74bed0a43e8a
>
> *Schedule:*
> https://hackmd.io/@pulp/pulpcon2020_schedule
>
>
I don't seem to be able to access the
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 that signing service.
>
> The Debian plugin requires the user to specify the
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:16 AM David Davis wrote:
>
> Neal,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. Any idea if Cobbler or Pulp users would be
> interested in applicability[0] being part of Pulp 3? One of the big changes
> in Pulp 3 is that Pulp no longer maintains content consumer information so
>
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
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 3:48 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote:
>
> Advisory
>
> Opensuse advisory
>
> some fields differs (reboot_suggested != restart_suggested)
>
These are not the same fields. The restart_suggested field indicates
that the update tool should restart itself after this update is
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 11:40 AM Daniel Alley wrote:
> Proposal: The pulp/devel repository will install a CentOS 7 base box
> instead of a Fedora 28 one
>
> Rationale:
>
> * CentOS / RHEL is what our users are using. Using a different platform
> can result in different behavior in the development
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 7:59 AM David Davis wrote:
> Follow up question to adding support for black: should we drop flake8? We
> shouldn't need it anymore since black is pep8 compliant but I'm happy to
> keep it around at least temporarily if people prefer?
>
Drop it. It's redundant and annoying
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:08 AM Mike DePaulo wrote:
>
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7-beta/html/7.7_release_notes/new_features#enhancement_compiler-and-tools
>
> This means that once RHEL 7.7 & CentOS 7.7 come out, the lack of an EPEL7
>
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:05 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:01 AM Eric Helms wrote:
> >
> > For most Pulp 3 installations, it seems there are two default applications
> > that will be running: API and content. Those applications are set to r
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:01 AM Eric Helms wrote:
>
> For most Pulp 3 installations, it seems there are two default applications
> that will be running: API and content. Those applications are set to run on
> 8000 and 8080 respectively. I was thinking that it might be more obvious for
>
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Patrick Creech wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 12:03 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Brian Bouterse wrote:
> > > This identifies that packaging Pulp into Fedora is valuable. Thank you
> > > for that. I'
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Brian Bouterse wrote:
>
> This identifies that packaging Pulp into Fedora is valuable. Thank you for
> that. I've got a few questions to help us get there.
>
> What is the recommendation for where to keep the spec files for these items?
> Is it directly in the
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:15 PM David Davis wrote:
>
> Neal,
>
> I completely agree with the points you brought up and would love to see Pulp
> 3 shipped in Fedora. The only thing I am hesitant about is the timing. Fedora
> 30 is shipping in May, correct? We’re approaching an RC for Pulp’s core
Hello all,
I wanted to ask about having Pulp 3 land in Fedora. We've had Pulp 2
in the distribution for several releases now (it was dropped in Fedora
28~29). The new Pulp 3 stuff looks wicked cool and seems to be a vast
improvement over Pulp 2. With MongoDB being dropped in Fedora 30[1],
there's
25 matches
Mail list logo
