[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.0.0b23 is available

[Dennis Kliban]

pulpcore 3.0.0b23 is available on PyPI[0]. The release notes can be found
here [1].

The beta documentation is available here[2].

[0]: https://pypi.org/project/pulpcore/3.0.0b23
[1]:
https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/release-notes/pulpcore/3.0.x.html#b23
[2] https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/beta/
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Ina Panova]

+1 to keep current pulp3 service names
+1 to rename pulp2 service names

Thank you for putting this email together, very clear and straight to the
point!

ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 19:13 David Davis :

> +1 to option 2.
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on
>>> the naming of the services.
>>>
>>> To summarize the thread, our options:
>>>
>>>- Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>>   - didn't meet any support
>>>   - let's drop this option
>>>   - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>>   - got support from the majority
>>>   - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
>>>   this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed and 
>>> they have
>>>   enough time to test it for pulp2
>>>   - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
>>>   - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names
>>>for Pulp3 services
>>>   - barely discussed
>>>   - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names
>>>
>>> Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2.
>>> Details will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I
>>> misinterpreted any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change
>>> the names in pulp2.
>>>
>>> To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
>>> vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till
>>> Friday, March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
>>> Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
>>> (reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
>>> decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
>>> The current ones are:
>>>
>>>- pulp-resource-manager
>>>- pulp-worker
>>>- pulp-content-app
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha  wrote:
>>>
 I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2
 as we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years
 :) also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.

 But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern
 as we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.

 pulpcore-resource-manager
 pulpcore-worker
 pulpcore-content-app



 On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:

> I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
> confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
> problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
> differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 
> 3
> would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
> entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:
>
>  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager,
> pulp-tasking-manager, pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
>  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
> pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling
>
> This option still requires developers and operates with both to
> remember which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more
> obvious given the complete naming difference than remembering which is the
> hyphen and which is the underscore release.
>
> Let the bike shedding begin!
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the
>> future without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older
>> bits and keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for
>> Pulp 3+.
>>
>> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in
>> a Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
>> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
>> impact.
>>
>> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
>>> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear
>>> distinction of legacy version.
>>> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones
>>> unchanged and more importantly without version in the name.
>>> -0 to make names configurable.
>>>
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changing behavior of the pclean alias

[Daniel Alley]

Neither python manage.py test (which is only meant to be used with unit
tests) nor pytest (which is only meant to be used with functional tests)
should be impacted by this change.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:59 PM Dana Walker  wrote:

> What if you're not using django-admin test but instead pytest?  I noticed
> that when I'd been running a lot of tests, and then manually went to create
> a distribution, etc, the numbers indicated that way more had been created
> than I had done manually (and this was more than a month ago, before the
> change back from integer to UUID).
>
>
> Dana Walker
>
> Associate Software Engineer
>
> Red Hat
>
> 
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:44 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>
>> Austin, this happens when you use the django-admin test runner. It
>> creates a test database when running tests. If you interrupt the tests, the
>> database does not get removed. The next time your run django-admin test,
>> you get prompted about deleting the existing test db. You can only run the
>> tests again if you allow django-admin to remove the old test db. I don't
>> think we need to file any issue around this.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:21 PM Austin Macdonald 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's interesting! Pavel, next time you see this, could you file an
>>> issue that includes what is in the DB?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 12:01 Pavel Picka  wrote:
>>>
 I noticed when I run test sometimes it left something in DB... but I
 found why, as tests didn't finish completely it didn't destroy db after
 itself.
 so take only +1 and skip everything after

 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:56 PM Austin Macdonald 
 wrote:

> Pavel, can you elaborate?
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Pavel Picka  wrote:
>
>> +1 and what do you think about idea of dropping all DBs as sometimes
>> test let there some (it doesn't affect pulp but when clean db so clean it
>> whole)?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dennis Kliban 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Alley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I created a new PR here [0] which changes the behavior of the
 pclean alias so that it also wipes out /var/lib/pulp/ in addition to
 dropping and recreating the database.

 Unless anyone objects, I plan to merge it tomorrow afternoon
 (Wednesday the 20th)

 [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/93
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pavel Picka
>> Red Hat
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>

 --
 Pavel Picka
 Red Hat

>>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changing behavior of the pclean alias

[Dana Walker]

What if you're not using django-admin test but instead pytest?  I noticed
that when I'd been running a lot of tests, and then manually went to create
a distribution, etc, the numbers indicated that way more had been created
than I had done manually (and this was more than a month ago, before the
change back from integer to UUID).


Dana Walker

Associate Software Engineer

Red Hat





On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:44 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:

> Austin, this happens when you use the django-admin test runner. It creates
> a test database when running tests. If you interrupt the tests, the
> database does not get removed. The next time your run django-admin test,
> you get prompted about deleting the existing test db. You can only run the
> tests again if you allow django-admin to remove the old test db. I don't
> think we need to file any issue around this.
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:21 PM Austin Macdonald 
> wrote:
>
>> That's interesting! Pavel, next time you see this, could you file an
>> issue that includes what is in the DB?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 12:01 Pavel Picka  wrote:
>>
>>> I noticed when I run test sometimes it left something in DB... but I
>>> found why, as tests didn't finish completely it didn't destroy db after
>>> itself.
>>> so take only +1 and skip everything after
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:56 PM Austin Macdonald 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Pavel, can you elaborate?

 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Pavel Picka  wrote:

> +1 and what do you think about idea of dropping all DBs as sometimes
> test let there some (it doesn't affect pulp but when clean db so clean it
> whole)?
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dennis Kliban 
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Alley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I created a new PR here [0] which changes the behavior of the pclean
>>> alias so that it also wipes out /var/lib/pulp/ in addition to dropping 
>>> and
>>> recreating the database.
>>>
>>> Unless anyone objects, I plan to merge it tomorrow afternoon
>>> (Wednesday the 20th)
>>>
>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/93
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Pavel Picka
> Red Hat
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>

>>>
>>> --
>>> Pavel Picka
>>> Red Hat
>>>
>> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Default Ports

[Eric Helms]

Thanks for following up with an issue Mike!

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 1:45 PM Mike DePaulo  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 4:36 PM Mike DePaulo  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:46 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm fine if someone wants to take up the effort to find and suggest
> two ports that match all of those as the defaults.
> >
> > I suggest:
> > 24816 (powers of 2: 2, 4, 8, 16)
> > 24817
> >
> > They're not officially reserved, and only used by Apple "med-ltp" as
> > part of a block of 1000 ports. [1] [2]
> >
> > I am new to Pulp, but I think other devs indicated that users may
> > browse available content. If so, I suggest we use 24816 for content,
> > and 24817 for API.
> >
> > > I've already opened a PR to make port customization a reality. In most
> environments, these ports won't see the light of day as they will be
> running services on localhost with a webserver proxying to them. I was
> aiming for sane defaults, that users and developers could easily rely on
> and expect across basic environments. And allow customization in
> environments that need it.
> >
> > Understood, I was not aware of this. But we need to prevent any
> > conflicts by default. Even if we only listen on localhost, we can
> > conflict with services listening on all interfaces. Users are likely
> > to give up on Pulp if they run into a port conflict; either because
> > they cannot figure it out ("why isn't this service starting?") or
> > because they spend too much time trying to set it up and other
> > priorities come up.
>
> Since users can interact with the API via web browser, I submitted a
> task for 24816 (API) & 24817 (content):
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4556
>
> -Mike
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[David Davis]

+1 to option 2.

David


On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on
>> the naming of the services.
>>
>> To summarize the thread, our options:
>>
>>- Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>   - didn't meet any support
>>   - let's drop this option
>>   - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>   - got support from the majority
>>   - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
>>   this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed and they 
>> have
>>   enough time to test it for pulp2
>>   - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
>>   - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names
>>for Pulp3 services
>>   - barely discussed
>>   - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names
>>
>> Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2.
>> Details will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I
>> misinterpreted any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change
>> the names in pulp2.
>>
>> To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
>> vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till Friday,
>> March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
>> Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
>> (reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
>> decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
>> The current ones are:
>>
>>- pulp-resource-manager
>>- pulp-worker
>>- pulp-content-app
>>
>>
>> I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Tanya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha  wrote:
>>
>>> I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2
>>> as we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years
>>> :) also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.
>>>
>>> But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern
>>> as we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.
>>>
>>> pulpcore-resource-manager
>>> pulpcore-worker
>>> pulpcore-content-app
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>>
 I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
 confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
 problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
 differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
 would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
 entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:

  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager,
 pulp-tasking-manager, pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
 pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling

 This option still requires developers and operates with both to
 remember which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more
 obvious given the complete naming difference than remembering which is the
 hyphen and which is the underscore release.

 Let the bike shedding begin!

 On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:

> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the
> future without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older
> bits and keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for
> Pulp 3+.
>
> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in
> a Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
> impact.
>
> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
>> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear
>> distinction of legacy version.
>> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones
>> unchanged and more importantly without version in the name.
>> -0 to make names configurable.
>>
>> Tanya
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
>>> have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 
>>> 3.
>>> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
>>> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is 
>>> the
>>> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
>>> 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Daniel Alley]

+1

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on
> the naming of the services.
>
> To summarize the thread, our options:
>
>- Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>   - didn't meet any support
>   - let's drop this option
>   - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>   - got support from the majority
>   - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
>   this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed and they 
> have
>   enough time to test it for pulp2
>   - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
>   - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names
>for Pulp3 services
>   - barely discussed
>   - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names
>
> Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2. Details
> will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I misinterpreted
> any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change the names in
> pulp2.
>
> To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
> vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till Friday,
> March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
> Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
> (reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
> decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
> The current ones are:
>
>- pulp-resource-manager
>- pulp-worker
>- pulp-content-app
>
>
> I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.
>
> Thank you,
> Tanya
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha  wrote:
>
>> I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2
>> as we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years
>> :) also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.
>>
>> But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern as
>> we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.
>>
>> pulpcore-resource-manager
>> pulpcore-worker
>> pulpcore-content-app
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
>>> confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
>>> problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
>>> differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
>>> would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
>>> entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:
>>>
>>>  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager,
>>> pulp-tasking-manager, pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
>>>  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
>>> pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling
>>>
>>> This option still requires developers and operates with both to remember
>>> which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more obvious given
>>> the complete naming difference than remembering which is the hyphen and
>>> which is the underscore release.
>>>
>>> Let the bike shedding begin!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>>
 My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the
 future without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older
 bits and keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for
 Pulp 3+.

 As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
 Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
 possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
 impact.

 is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
 ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction
> of legacy version.
> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones
> unchanged and more importantly without version in the name.
> -0 to make names configurable.
>
> Tanya
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>
>> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
>> have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 
>> 3.
>> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
>> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is 
>> the
>> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
>> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less
>> variation in naming conventions.
>> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will
>> lock services names to 

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Default Ports

[Mike DePaulo]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 4:36 PM Mike DePaulo  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:46 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
> >
> > I'm fine if someone wants to take up the effort to find and suggest two 
> > ports that match all of those as the defaults.
>
> I suggest:
> 24816 (powers of 2: 2, 4, 8, 16)
> 24817
>
> They're not officially reserved, and only used by Apple "med-ltp" as
> part of a block of 1000 ports. [1] [2]
>
> I am new to Pulp, but I think other devs indicated that users may
> browse available content. If so, I suggest we use 24816 for content,
> and 24817 for API.
>
> > I've already opened a PR to make port customization a reality. In most 
> > environments, these ports won't see the light of day as they will be 
> > running services on localhost with a webserver proxying to them. I was 
> > aiming for sane defaults, that users and developers could easily rely on 
> > and expect across basic environments. And allow customization in 
> > environments that need it.
>
> Understood, I was not aware of this. But we need to prevent any
> conflicts by default. Even if we only listen on localhost, we can
> conflict with services listening on all interfaces. Users are likely
> to give up on Pulp if they run into a port conflict; either because
> they cannot figure it out ("why isn't this service starting?") or
> because they spend too much time trying to set it up and other
> priorities come up.

Since users can interact with the API via web browser, I submitted a
task for 24816 (API) & 24817 (content):
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4556

-Mike

___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

[Tatiana Tereshchenko]

Hi everyone,

We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on the
naming of the services.

To summarize the thread, our options:

   - Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
  - didn't meet any support
  - let's drop this option
  - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
  - got support from the majority
  - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
  this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed
and they have
  enough time to test it for pulp2
  - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
  - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names for
   Pulp3 services
  - barely discussed
  - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names

Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2. Details
will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I misinterpreted
any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change the names in
pulp2.

To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till Friday,
March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
(reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
The current ones are:

   - pulp-resource-manager
   - pulp-worker
   - pulp-content-app


I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.

Thank you,
Tanya




On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha  wrote:

> I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2 as
> we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years :)
> also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.
>
> But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern as
> we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.
>
> pulpcore-resource-manager
> pulpcore-worker
> pulpcore-content-app
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
>> confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
>> problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
>> differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
>> would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
>> entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:
>>
>>  * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager, pulp-tasking-manager,
>> pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
>>  * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
>> pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling
>>
>> This option still requires developers and operates with both to remember
>> which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more obvious given
>> the complete naming difference than remembering which is the hyphen and
>> which is the underscore release.
>>
>> Let the bike shedding begin!
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future
>>> without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and
>>> keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+.
>>>
>>> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
>>> Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
>>> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
>>> impact.
>>>
>>> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
 +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
 It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction
 of legacy version.
 I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones
 unchanged and more importantly without version in the name.
 -0 to make names configurable.

 Tanya

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova  wrote:

> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
> have  upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3.
> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is 
> the
> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less
> variation in naming conventions.
> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will
> lock services names to Pulp version.
>
> @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make
> only the hyphens change.
> @asmacdo  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i
> think this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changing behavior of the pclean alias

[Pavel Picka]

+1 I think it is not issue it was just I exited tests in dirty way - that
will be always issue.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:44 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:

> Austin, this happens when you use the django-admin test runner. It creates
> a test database when running tests. If you interrupt the tests, the
> database does not get removed. The next time your run django-admin test,
> you get prompted about deleting the existing test db. You can only run the
> tests again if you allow django-admin to remove the old test db. I don't
> think we need to file any issue around this.
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:21 PM Austin Macdonald 
> wrote:
>
>> That's interesting! Pavel, next time you see this, could you file an
>> issue that includes what is in the DB?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 12:01 Pavel Picka  wrote:
>>
>>> I noticed when I run test sometimes it left something in DB... but I
>>> found why, as tests didn't finish completely it didn't destroy db after
>>> itself.
>>> so take only +1 and skip everything after
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:56 PM Austin Macdonald 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Pavel, can you elaborate?

 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Pavel Picka  wrote:

> +1 and what do you think about idea of dropping all DBs as sometimes
> test let there some (it doesn't affect pulp but when clean db so clean it
> whole)?
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dennis Kliban 
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Alley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I created a new PR here [0] which changes the behavior of the pclean
>>> alias so that it also wipes out /var/lib/pulp/ in addition to dropping 
>>> and
>>> recreating the database.
>>>
>>> Unless anyone objects, I plan to merge it tomorrow afternoon
>>> (Wednesday the 20th)
>>>
>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/93
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Pavel Picka
> Red Hat
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>

>>>
>>> --
>>> Pavel Picka
>>> Red Hat
>>>
>>

-- 
Pavel Picka
Red Hat
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changing behavior of the pclean alias

[Dennis Kliban]

Austin, this happens when you use the django-admin test runner. It creates
a test database when running tests. If you interrupt the tests, the
database does not get removed. The next time your run django-admin test,
you get prompted about deleting the existing test db. You can only run the
tests again if you allow django-admin to remove the old test db. I don't
think we need to file any issue around this.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:21 PM Austin Macdonald  wrote:

> That's interesting! Pavel, next time you see this, could you file an issue
> that includes what is in the DB?
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 12:01 Pavel Picka  wrote:
>
>> I noticed when I run test sometimes it left something in DB... but I
>> found why, as tests didn't finish completely it didn't destroy db after
>> itself.
>> so take only +1 and skip everything after
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:56 PM Austin Macdonald 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Pavel, can you elaborate?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Pavel Picka  wrote:
>>>
 +1 and what do you think about idea of dropping all DBs as sometimes
 test let there some (it doesn't affect pulp but when clean db so clean it
 whole)?

 On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dennis Kliban 
 wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Alley 
> wrote:
>
>> I created a new PR here [0] which changes the behavior of the pclean
>> alias so that it also wipes out /var/lib/pulp/ in addition to dropping 
>> and
>> recreating the database.
>>
>> Unless anyone objects, I plan to merge it tomorrow afternoon
>> (Wednesday the 20th)
>>
>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/93
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>


 --
 Pavel Picka
 Red Hat
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>>
>>
>> --
>> Pavel Picka
>> Red Hat
>>
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changing behavior of the pclean alias

[Austin Macdonald]

That's interesting! Pavel, next time you see this, could you file an issue
that includes what is in the DB?

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 12:01 Pavel Picka  wrote:

> I noticed when I run test sometimes it left something in DB... but I found
> why, as tests didn't finish completely it didn't destroy db after itself.
> so take only +1 and skip everything after
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:56 PM Austin Macdonald 
> wrote:
>
>> Pavel, can you elaborate?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Pavel Picka  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 and what do you think about idea of dropping all DBs as sometimes
>>> test let there some (it doesn't affect pulp but when clean db so clean it
>>> whole)?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dennis Kliban 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1

 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:

> I created a new PR here [0] which changes the behavior of the pclean
> alias so that it also wipes out /var/lib/pulp/ in addition to dropping and
> recreating the database.
>
> Unless anyone objects, I plan to merge it tomorrow afternoon
> (Wednesday the 20th)
>
> [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/93
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pavel Picka
>>> Red Hat
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Pavel Picka
> Red Hat
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changing behavior of the pclean alias

[Pavel Picka]

I noticed when I run test sometimes it left something in DB... but I found
why, as tests didn't finish completely it didn't destroy db after itself.
so take only +1 and skip everything after

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:56 PM Austin Macdonald  wrote:

> Pavel, can you elaborate?
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Pavel Picka  wrote:
>
>> +1 and what do you think about idea of dropping all DBs as sometimes test
>> let there some (it doesn't affect pulp but when clean db so clean it
>> whole)?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dennis Kliban 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:
>>>
 I created a new PR here [0] which changes the behavior of the pclean
 alias so that it also wipes out /var/lib/pulp/ in addition to dropping and
 recreating the database.

 Unless anyone objects, I plan to merge it tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday
 the 20th)

 [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/93
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pavel Picka
>> Red Hat
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>

-- 
Pavel Picka
Red Hat
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file ownership

[Robin Chan]

That would be everyone.
Make is so.
I am assuming this means the core team already has enough expertise to own
the file plugin, If anyone believes that not to be the case let me know how
I can help support cross training efforts.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:21 AM Dennis Kliban  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:04 AM Daniel Alley  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:16 AM Brian Bouterse 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to moving pulp_file to the core team
>>>
>>> We should also remove the 'File' team on github with this change, since
>>> it won't be a thing anymore. For those with Pulp org permissions that is
>>> here:  https://github.com/orgs/pulp/teams/file
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:48 AM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>>
 +1 for the core team

 ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 9:06 Tatiana Tereshchenko :

> +1 move the pulp_file repo under the core team
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:10 PM Austin Macdonald 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for the latter.
>>
>> Since some changes to pulpcore or pulpcore-plugin also require
>> changes to pulp_file (anything backwards incompatible) everyone on the 
>> core
>> team needs to be able to quickly make changes to pulp_file as well. (And
>> vice versa.)
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:04 PM David Davis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> With @jortel having left the Pulp team, the people with a commit bit
>>> to pulp_file is down to just @dkliban and I. I don't think this is 
>>> enough.
>>> We could either add more people to the pulp_file team or just move the
>>> pulp_file repo under the core team. I am leaning toward the latter. Any
>>> objections?
>>>
>>> David
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changing behavior of the pclean alias

[Austin Macdonald]

Pavel, can you elaborate?

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Pavel Picka  wrote:

> +1 and what do you think about idea of dropping all DBs as sometimes test
> let there some (it doesn't affect pulp but when clean db so clean it
> whole)?
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:
>>
>>> I created a new PR here [0] which changes the behavior of the pclean
>>> alias so that it also wipes out /var/lib/pulp/ in addition to dropping and
>>> recreating the database.
>>>
>>> Unless anyone objects, I plan to merge it tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday
>>> the 20th)
>>>
>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/93
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Pavel Picka
> Red Hat
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] New Pulp 3.0 RC date

[David Davis]

As of today, we still intend to release the RC on March 27, 2019. If
anything arises though which will impact and change the release date, we
will communicate that out to the pulp mailing lists so please continue to
check here for updated information.

David


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:57 AM David Davis  wrote:

> In order to give more time to some outstanding discussions like whether to
> switch to UUIDs[0] or to drop pulp-manager[1], we’re pushing back the
> release of Pulp 3 RC by one week. The new feature freeze date is March 13,
> 2019 while the release is expected to be on March 27, 2019.
>
> [0] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00088.html
> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4450
>
> David
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changing behavior of the pclean alias

[Pavel Picka]

+1 and what do you think about idea of dropping all DBs as sometimes test
let there some (it doesn't affect pulp but when clean db so clean it
whole)?

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:12 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:
>
>> I created a new PR here [0] which changes the behavior of the pclean
>> alias so that it also wipes out /var/lib/pulp/ in addition to dropping and
>> recreating the database.
>>
>> Unless anyone objects, I plan to merge it tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday
>> the 20th)
>>
>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/93
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>


-- 
Pavel Picka
Red Hat
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file ownership

[Dennis Kliban]

+1

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:04 AM Daniel Alley  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:16 AM Brian Bouterse 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to moving pulp_file to the core team
>>
>> We should also remove the 'File' team on github with this change, since
>> it won't be a thing anymore. For those with Pulp org permissions that is
>> here:  https://github.com/orgs/pulp/teams/file
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:48 AM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for the core team
>>>
>>> ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 9:06 Tatiana Tereshchenko :
>>>
 +1 move the pulp_file repo under the core team

 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:10 PM Austin Macdonald 
 wrote:

> +1 for the latter.
>
> Since some changes to pulpcore or pulpcore-plugin also require changes
> to pulp_file (anything backwards incompatible) everyone on the core team
> needs to be able to quickly make changes to pulp_file as well. (And vice
> versa.)
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:04 PM David Davis 
> wrote:
>
>> With @jortel having left the Pulp team, the people with a commit bit
>> to pulp_file is down to just @dkliban and I. I don't think this is 
>> enough.
>> We could either add more people to the pulp_file team or just move the
>> pulp_file repo under the core team. I am leaning toward the latter. Any
>> objections?
>>
>> David
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file ownership

[Daniel Alley]

+1

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:16 AM Brian Bouterse  wrote:

> +1 to moving pulp_file to the core team
>
> We should also remove the 'File' team on github with this change, since it
> won't be a thing anymore. For those with Pulp org permissions that is
> here:  https://github.com/orgs/pulp/teams/file
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:48 AM Ina Panova  wrote:
>
>> +1 for the core team
>>
>> ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 9:06 Tatiana Tereshchenko :
>>
>>> +1 move the pulp_file repo under the core team
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:10 PM Austin Macdonald 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 for the latter.

 Since some changes to pulpcore or pulpcore-plugin also require changes
 to pulp_file (anything backwards incompatible) everyone on the core team
 needs to be able to quickly make changes to pulp_file as well. (And vice
 versa.)

 On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:04 PM David Davis 
 wrote:

> With @jortel having left the Pulp team, the people with a commit bit
> to pulp_file is down to just @dkliban and I. I don't think this is enough.
> We could either add more people to the pulp_file team or just move the
> pulp_file repo under the core team. I am leaning toward the latter. Any
> objections?
>
> David
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file ownership

[Brian Bouterse]

+1 to moving pulp_file to the core team

We should also remove the 'File' team on github with this change, since it
won't be a thing anymore. For those with Pulp org permissions that is
here:  https://github.com/orgs/pulp/teams/file

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:48 AM Ina Panova  wrote:

> +1 for the core team
>
> ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 9:06 Tatiana Tereshchenko :
>
>> +1 move the pulp_file repo under the core team
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:10 PM Austin Macdonald 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for the latter.
>>>
>>> Since some changes to pulpcore or pulpcore-plugin also require changes
>>> to pulp_file (anything backwards incompatible) everyone on the core team
>>> needs to be able to quickly make changes to pulp_file as well. (And vice
>>> versa.)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:04 PM David Davis 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 With @jortel having left the Pulp team, the people with a commit bit to
 pulp_file is down to just @dkliban and I. I don't think this is enough. We
 could either add more people to the pulp_file team or just move the
 pulp_file repo under the core team. I am leaning toward the latter. Any
 objections?

 David
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changing behavior of the pclean alias

[Dennis Kliban]

+1

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:39 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:

> I created a new PR here [0] which changes the behavior of the pclean alias
> so that it also wipes out /var/lib/pulp/ in addition to dropping and
> recreating the database.
>
> Unless anyone objects, I plan to merge it tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday
> the 20th)
>
> [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/93
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file ownership

[Ina Panova]

+1 for the core team

ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 9:06 Tatiana Tereshchenko :

> +1 move the pulp_file repo under the core team
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:10 PM Austin Macdonald 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for the latter.
>>
>> Since some changes to pulpcore or pulpcore-plugin also require changes to
>> pulp_file (anything backwards incompatible) everyone on the core team needs
>> to be able to quickly make changes to pulp_file as well. (And vice versa.)
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:04 PM David Davis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> With @jortel having left the Pulp team, the people with a commit bit to
>>> pulp_file is down to just @dkliban and I. I don't think this is enough. We
>>> could either add more people to the pulp_file team or just move the
>>> pulp_file repo under the core team. I am leaning toward the latter. Any
>>> objections?
>>>
>>> David
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file ownership

[Tatiana Tereshchenko]

+1 move the pulp_file repo under the core team

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:10 PM Austin Macdonald 
wrote:

> +1 for the latter.
>
> Since some changes to pulpcore or pulpcore-plugin also require changes to
> pulp_file (anything backwards incompatible) everyone on the core team needs
> to be able to quickly make changes to pulp_file as well. (And vice versa.)
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:04 PM David Davis  wrote:
>
>> With @jortel having left the Pulp team, the people with a commit bit to
>> pulp_file is down to just @dkliban and I. I don't think this is enough. We
>> could either add more people to the pulp_file team or just move the
>> pulp_file repo under the core team. I am leaning toward the latter. Any
>> objections?
>>
>> David
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev