Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.12.0 blocked(ish)

+1 to option 2. If a pulp smash test is failing, it would be great if the full command to run exactly that test be posted on the bug. That would reduce the time it takes for a developer to resolve the issue. Thanks for raising this. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Michael Hrivnak

Re: [Pulp-dev] Merging forward commits

The main concern for me is how to track the cherry picks in Redmine. Using the rebase and merge approach, or if Github had a dedicate cherry pick feature, we still need a way in Redmine to know if any given bugfix has been applied to older release streams, i.e. the current bugfix release stream.

[Pulp-dev] Vagrant Up is Broken (and how to workaround it)

When running `vagrant up` it will get stuck early on with the output: "==> dev: Installing NFS client..." and will eventually error out. This happens 100% of the time and started about 2 days ago. A recent version of rpcbind that was pushed to Fedora 24+ introduced a regression. That issue is

[Pulp-dev] Call for Presenters: Sprint 15 Demo Thursday (March 2nd)

The Sprint 15 demo is scheduled for Thursday March 2nd at 15:00 UTC. If you've done any of the following as part of Sprint 15, please consider signing up as a presenter [0]. Please sign up by this Friday Feb 24th. - Notable feature - Notable bugfix - QE update/activity This sprint demo will be a

Re: [Pulp-dev] release process updates

> Regards, > > Ina Panova > 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 Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >

Re: [Pulp-dev] RFC process

we can announce it for voting and/or further > discussion on pulp-dev list. > > -Dennis > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> I pushed a new version based on feedback on the PR. It outlines several >> alternatives that we

Re: [Pulp-dev] Transition from Mongo to Postgre

In addition to what @mhrivnak said. For me, the big motivation is transaction support. A single Pulp sync or publish can issue thousands of writes to the database. A failure in the middle leaves the database "half-updated" and Pulp has no feasible way to roll back these changes. This creates a

Re: [Pulp-dev] More Story cleanup (Building and testing)

Those all look fine to close WONTFIX. I believe issue #79 should be CLOSED - CURRENT RELEASE On 09/13/2016 01:58 PM, Austin Macdonald wrote: Anyone see any value in keeping these? https://pulp.plan.io/issues/72 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/75 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/76

[Pulp-dev] Does everything live in pulp.app?

I'm thinking of this in the context of my conversion of the tasking system to use the new Django-based models. As part of that transition the "tasking system code" is moving out of pulp/server/pulp/server/async/* and moving into pulp/app/pulp/app/tasks/* This will make imports to taking system

[Pulp-dev] Pulp Sprint Demo 8

The sprint 8 demo scheduled for today is canceled due to a lack of presenters. Topics that were planned to be presented will be turned into blog posts, which will primarily cover Pulp 3 topics. The next sprint demo (sprint 9) is scheduled for 10/27 @ 10am EDT. -Brian

Re: [Pulp-dev] authentication proposal for 3.0

Thanks for the reply. A few questions inline. On 09/20/2016 01:32 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: Great questions. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com <mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote: 1. To recap what SSL users should transition onto... Fo

Re: [Pulp-dev] Does everything live in pulp.app?

want to move them into the package pulp.tasking.registry. It would be great to have all of our tasks defined in one place. -Brian On 09/16/2016 09:05 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: On 09/15/2016 11:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: I'm wondering if moving it to pulp.tasks would be a better home

[Pulp-dev] Plugin API for 3.0 -- Meeting Recap

On 8/23 we had a productive discussion on planning the Plugin API for 3.0. Thanks to everyone who participated. You can see the minutes from the discussion here [0]. We are going to continue the discussion at a meeting on 8/30 at 9am ET. A summary of next-steps will be sent out after we can

[Pulp-dev] Three Pulp3 Stories

Here are three Pulp3 stories that I wrote based on the progress reporting session last week. These two I think we should do for the MVP so I gave them the 'Pulp 3' tag. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2318 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2319 This one I did not give the 'Pulp 3' tag because I wanted

Re: [Pulp-dev] RFC: Use Napoleon when Writing Docs

As Jeremy points out, it's a question of style choice. I am in favor of adopting the Google docstring style. It's grouping style is clear and the sections [0] look good too. I prefer that more than the one-line RST syntax that Jeremy gave an example of which would also be an improvement over

[Pulp-dev] Calling Presenters: Sprint 9 Demo

This Thursday 10/27 at 10AM EDT we will have Sprint 9 demos. This was the work from Sprint 9 [0]. Consider signing up [1] for a demo for any of the following: - notable features or bugfixes - Pulp3 showcase or dev preview things that are merged - QE related accomplishments [0]:

Re: [Pulp-dev] Upcoming epel6 Dependency Issues

After some discussion today we determined the following will be done: @mhrivnak is going to solicit feedback via pulp-list on how long (time or release) users want us to continue producing el6 builds for. I will produce a blog post identifying what this epel6 change means for EL6 Pulp users We

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp3: task - worker relationship

I took that idea and posted it to issue #2430. I marked it as a sprint candidate if someone wants to groom it. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2430 On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Patrick Creech <pcre...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 15:33 -0500, Brian Bouterse wrot

Re: [Pulp-dev] RFC: Use Napoleon when Writing Docs

Also +1. Is this story ready to be groomed and marked as a sprint candidate=yes? https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2347 On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > +1 switching to Napoleon. > > On 10/17/2016 10:14 AM, Sean Myers wrote: > > I'd love it if we could stop

[Pulp-dev] Calling Presenters: Sprint 11 Demo

The Sprint 11 Demo is scheduled for this Thursday Dec 8th at 14:00 UTC (10AM EDT). If you've done any of the following as part of Sprint 11 [0] consider signing up as a presenter [1]. - Notable feature or bugfix - Pulp 3 activity - QE update/activity [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=78

[Pulp-dev] New 'Smash Test' Field in Redmine

I made a new field in Redmine called 'Smash Test'. It is designed to store the issue number for a pulp smash issue. When populated, it will create a clickable link to the smash issue. The smash issue should contain the issue's test plan. This field is available for Stories, Issues, and Tasks but

[Pulp-dev] Reorganizing the 3.0-dev Folders

Following up some discussion with @mhrivnak and @smyers, I've written two stories: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2463 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/278 Please comment on those issues with questions/ideas. If they get some +1 (on the issue) then someone can mark them as groomed. Thank you! Brian

Re: [Pulp-dev] Puppet setup on prepare_node script (pulp_packaging)

+1 to pulling out puppet to unblock the builds. +1 to replacing any puppet usage with Ansible, which is consistent with the current direction[0]. After digging around in git some, it looks like those puppet lines were originally added in 2015 with this commit[1]. That commit both installs puppet

[Pulp-dev] Recovering Vagrant Box Data after Host Restart

I had a Vagrant box with meaningful data from a long running test, but my host system lost power. Once power was restored to my host, I didn't want to `vagrant up` again to loose my configuration and data of Pulp inside the vagrant environment. To fix this I: # destroyed the virbr0 interface sudo

[Pulp-dev] Next Sprint Demo -- Jan 19th at 15:00 UTC

The next sprint demo will be on Jan 19th at 15:00 UTC. It will include both sprint 12 and 13 demo content. You can sign up as a presenter here[0]. This change is mainly due to limited presenter availability during the holiday. Given the recent focus on bugfixes, we should have enough time to demo

[Pulp-dev] PUPs Process Approved

The Pulp Update Process (an RFC process) has been approved and merged. A dedicated repo[0] will house the PUPs. The process for submitting future pups is outlined as pup1 [1]. This is designed to be a living document, and the in-place process can also be used to modify/refine the process over

Re: [Pulp-dev] Merging forward commits

I plan to turn this thread into a formal RFC once that process has been ratified. On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Sean Myers wrote: > On 02/06/2017 12:09 PM, Ina Panova wrote: > > Seems like we are trying to choose/figure out what's more important - > > linear commit

[Pulp-dev] No 'result' field for a Task in Pulp3

Today on a call an observation was made that Pulp3 does not need 'results' for a task. All non-error info about what happened during a task is associated with it's associated "Progress Report" objects [0]. Is there a use case where 'result' is meaningful that we preclude by removing it? I

[Pulp-dev] "Internal" periodic tasks in Pulp3?

This came out of IRC and discussion on a Pulp3 MVP call... In Pulp2 we had three "internal" periodic tasks [0] that would do things like database maintenance. The "nice to have" maintained periodic tasks can be left out of the Pulp3 MVP, but @mhrivnak identified that ' download_deferred_content'

Re: [Pulp-dev] "Internal" periodic tasks in Pulp3?

already use > it that way. > > Can you shed some light on the problems with using celerybeat with Pulp 3? > > Michael > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> This came out of IRC and discussion on a P

Re: [Pulp-dev] We need a new "closed" state in redmine.

+1 to CLOSED - COMPLETE +1 to only having it apply to task tracker and for all projects On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Sean Myers wrote: > On 03/30/2017 08:46 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > > Let's add CLOSED - COMPLETE. Let's add this state today so we can close > out > >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Merging forward commits

; > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> I plan to turn this thread into a formal RFC once that process has been >> ratified. >> >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Sean Myers <sean.my...@redhat.com> >&g

[Pulp-dev] Developer Environment (Vagrant) Usage and Internals Live Event, April 12

I am giving a live overview of Pulp's Vagrant environment which eases the burden of creating a Pulp developer environment. This shows some brief usage and a piece-by-piece explanation of the internals. This info should increase the usage of Vagrant and maintainability by going deeper on how its

Re: [Pulp-dev] PyPI names for Pulp3

After considering @pcreech's point, +1 installing Pulp in {datadir} and having it install there using setup.cfg options. In terms of setting the PYTHONPATH at runtime, it would be best if we could have the Python code do it itself at startup. As an alternative we could do it with the systemd

[Pulp-dev] Call for Presenters: Sprint 17 Demo, Thursday April 13

The Sprint 17 demo is scheduled for Thursday April 13 at 14:00 UTC [0]. If you've done any of the following as part of Sprint 17, please consider signing up as a presenter [1]. - Notable feature - Notable bugfix - QE update/activity This sprint demo will be a live community event. Please sign up

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal to use google style docstrings (PUP-2)

I left many comments. Mostly language and clarification requests. Since there are so many comments the pull request is a bit unreadable. FYI, you can see a rendered version of the current state here: https://github.com/asmacdo/pups/blob/google-docstrings/pup-0002.md Thanks @asmacdo for leading

Re: [Pulp-dev] Publish API for Plugin Writers (Pulp3)

lled if the previous publish only had units added. On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > For plugin writers who are writing a publisher for Pulp3, what do they > need to handle during publishing versus platform? To make a comparison &

Re: [Pulp-dev] PyPI names for Pulp3

+0 pulp3 +1 pulpproj -0 pulpproject -0 pulp_platform -1 plp We also need to answer the related question [0] about how the packages are going to be laid out. I'm +1 to having the top level namespace (the name above) contain the subnamespaces i.e. 'platform', 'common', 'streamer', and 'cli'. [0]:

Re: [Pulp-dev] Merging forward commits

; merges? > > Thanks. > > David > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> I would really like to collaborate on this. First one to start it; let >> the other know. >> >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:18 P

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.0 Validation update

heck syncability again > when the Task moves into an active state. > > > > My thinking is that we should put this business logic on the model. > > > > Admittedly, it is not a clean fit with the separation of concerns > philosophy but we have alread

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.0 Validation update

@asmacdo, your points cause me to also think that all importer/publisher update and delete operations should be tasks that use the tasking reservations system. That will cause them to never run while a sync or publish for instance is running. I'm interested in hearing more thoughts on this from

Re: [Pulp-dev] PyPI names for Pulp3

Two fyi's relating to the names. (1) pulpproj is our twitter handle. Both pulp and pulpproject were already taken. (2) I agree that pulp3 could be a headache down the road regardless of if the 3 is for Pulp3 or Python3. On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Jeremy Audet wrote: >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 Status and Next Steps Video Conference

Correction. Phone dial in info is: + 800 451 8679 Enter Meeting ID: 400322305 On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > On March 15 at 7pm UTC we'll have a 60 minute developer call to update the > current status of Pulp3 and discuss next steps.

Re: [Pulp-dev] [pulp-internal] Vagrant pulp2 pulp3 switching usage question

I end up just remaking my vagrant environments often. It has the side benefit of regularly checking that the vagrant environment is working which is great for the community and other developers. The environment and ansible playbooks are so different between master and 3.0-dev that it's not

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.0 Validation update

Thanks @smyers and asmacdo. This convinces me that we should just use the DRF serializer for all validation and expect that full_clean() is not the authority on what it means to be validated. I was really holding out on full_clean, but I can see now that we should go wholesale into DRF

[Pulp-dev] PyPI names for Pulp3

Pulp3 can't use the 'pulp' Python namespace like we did on Pulp2 because it's already taken on PyPI and we don't want to conflict. We need to decide on some new Python package names. I've updated a previous write-up[0] with options we have in this area. It talks about package name options for pip

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

/5/commits/959c67f5a4d16a26e1d97ea6fe4aa570066db768 -Brian On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > From the discussion on the call last week, I've made some revisions [2] to > explore the idea of having a lazy consensus model. Comments, ideas

[Pulp-dev] Merging forward master -> 3.0-dev

Originally 3.0-dev was branched from master, and we've merged master back into 3.0-dev twice, once at the end of 2016 and once in early 2017. I haven't heard about any plans to merge master -> 3.0-dev again. I want to check in if its time to declare that we aren't going to do that merge forward

Re: [Pulp-dev] Merging forward master -> 3.0-dev

], in case others want to look/edit/comment on it. [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2955 -Brian On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhriv...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >>

Re: [Pulp-dev] Redundancy in docstrings and serializer help_text

+1 to adopting this idea. @mhrivnak your summary sounds good. What is the next step to doing this? On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > This seems like a good approach. I'd summarize it as: > > Try hard to put the documentation for each field of a

[Pulp-dev] Call for Presenters: Community Demo, Thursday August 17

The next community demo is scheduled for Thursday, August 17 at 14:00 UTC [0]. If you've done any of the following as part of this sprint [1], please consider signing up as a presenter [2]. - Notable feature - Notable bugfix - QE update/activity This will be a live community event. Please sign

[Pulp-dev] checkout.py script updates

FYI, I added an option [0] called --base-dir to the checkout.py script [1] which allows the tool to operate on a checkout in any part of the filesystem. With this I was able to get both a Pulp2 and Pulp3 vagrant box both running and usable at the same time! I also cherry picked the checkout.py

[Pulp-dev] Building for Fedora 26

I filed a BZ about building for F26 here [0] since it's now GA. In terms of when to do it, I'm OK if we don't rebuild for 2.13.3 since it's already at Beta 2, but doing it for 2.14 would be good. We'll see the issue it at triage tomorrow. [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2904 -Brian

Re: [Pulp-dev] Fixtures: Added small OSTree repository.

Thanks for making this. Was this added to the fixtures github repo [1] which generates the fixture data published at [0]? If it wasn't done programmatically then it will get blown away at some point which means no pulp smash tests can use it. [1]: https://github.com/PulpQE/pulp-fixtures/ -Brian

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 first released - User stories ready to be tested

Even though that etherpad is "public" that server is not accessible off net which means it's still not visible to others. We've been using pad-katello.rhcloud.com as our etherpad server these days. I recommend using that instead. -Brian On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Kersom Moura Oliveira

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp 3 upload API validation

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Jeff Ortel <jor...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 07/11/2017 12:27 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com > <mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > We

[Pulp-dev] Call for Presenters: Community Demo, Thursday July 6

The next community demo is scheduled for Thursday, July 6 at 14:00 UTC [0]. If you've done any of the following as part of this sprint [1], please consider signing up as a presenter [2]. - Notable feature - Notable bugfix - QE update/activity This will be a live community event. Please sign up

Re: [Pulp-dev] proposing changes to pulp 3 upload API

There is really one practical issue that is driving this convo (I think): Django's file upload handling wants to save a file when we receive it. We also don't want to be moving around files. Therefore we must save the file in the right place on the first save(). So given ^, the question reduces

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp3: Publishing Proposal

+100 to this proposal as I understand it. Having a redirect engine to serve 100% of content that is looked up via the db is a must-have for pulp3. Besides opening up object storage use cases, solving practical file system limits with symlinks, it will allow us to reorganize content on the backend

Re: [Pulp-dev] proposing changes to pulp 3 upload API

I thought that we pulled out the chunking uploads from the MVP. IIRC, @jortel and I thought since that use case was for high performing (parallel) uploads and it should be on the 3.1+ page. +1 to just sending data without having a file handle. If the entire file is delivered in one request then

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

erably 2). I feel like if there’s at least two people driving a change >>> (i.e. X=2) then if one person leaves the project, we’ll still have someone >>> who is able and motivated to take on the maintenance and evolution of the >>> change. That said, I am happy to test o

Re: [Pulp-dev] proposing changes to pulp 3 upload API

upload a file > and create an Artifact from it. In Pulp 3.1+ we can introduce the > FileUpload model to support chunked uploads. At the same time we would > extend the Artifact API to accept a FileUpload id for creating an Artifact. > > >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:20 PM,

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.0 Validation update

I wrote a response inline. On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote: > > > On 04/21/2017 01:16 PM, Austin Macdonald wrote: > > I think we have arrived at a consensus around these points: > > +1 > > > > > * Django's ModelForm validations that are used during

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:21 AM, David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1. I think this is worth trying out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 10,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Use zypper on SUSE instead of yum (pull request)

I don't understand the details of this PR. Is there a dev out there who can look at this? @suttner, Thank you for the PR. I'm not sure what testing needs to be done as part of the review. Would you be willing to write a test plan that a reviewer could use? We usually write them as pulp smash

[Pulp-dev] Call for Presenters: Community Demo, Thursday May 25

The next community demo is scheduled for Thursday, May 25 at 14:00 UTC [0]. If you've done any of the following as part of the sprint, please consider signing up as a presenter [1]. - Notable feature - Notable bugfix - QE update/activity This will be a live community event. Please sign up soon

Re: [Pulp-dev] Including the pulp-deb plugin in pulp 2.14

in 1.6. > > Mihai > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> Mihai, I'm interested to hear how the testing goes between pulp_deb and >> the master branch of core (what will become 2.14). Also I want to check in >>

Re: [Pulp-dev] Terms: unassociate vs. disassociate

there is no path and leave a trail." > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> +1 to the "adding ..." and "removing ..." terminology. I think it will be >> more clear for users. >> >> O

Re: [Pulp-dev] versioned repositories

Versioned repos are super important to the future of Pulp. I need to state that because I'm going to make a case for us deferring this discussion/design/prototype until after Pulp 3.0 is GA. My major concern is getting Pulp3 to a release sooner instead of later. * To retell what I heard

Re: [Pulp-dev] versioned repositories

Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may lead, > go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Michael Hrivnak <mhriv...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Brian

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pull Request builder job changes for plugins

That is a good point, and one we are giving some thought to through convo on #pulp-dev and the issue [0]. The case of a plugin needing an unreleased change from core would fail with this change. It's a tradeoff though because if we go with nightlies as the version of core that is used, whenever

[Pulp-dev] Call for Presenters: Community Demo, Thursday June 15

The next community demo is scheduled for Thursday, June 15 at 14:00 UTC [0]. If you've done any of the following as part of the sprint, please consider signing up as a presenter [1]. - Notable feature - Notable bugfix - QE update/activity This will be a live community event. Please sign up by

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pull Request builder job changes for plugins

rge of maintaining these Jenkins jobs over time and are they currently maintained? 4. Who is in charge of managing the directory structure on repos.fedorapeople.org? 5. Where are the docs on ^? With Pulp3 I think we can switch to using the latest GA as the basis for plugin testing which would be

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

We should (I thought we did) adopt a process that favors change and does not have a "broad buy-in requirement". Any change that doesn't harm the project should be allowed without broad buy-in. This empowers even a single individual to enact change. This makes Pulp better because: * Everyone is

Re: [Pulp-dev] Including the pulp-deb plugin in pulp 2.14

> --verify-feed-ssl false --relative-url top/test-2-deb > pulp-admin deb repo sync run --repo-id test-2-deb > > Conformed a repo got created. > > pulp-admin deb repo delete --repo-id test-1-deb > pulp-admin deb repo delete --repo-id test-2-deb > > > I call that

Re: [Pulp-dev] file repository type

s when a particular service >>> has a well-defined way of expressing what files are available, in which >>> case we could instead support that as the discovery mechanism. It's a good >>> question about whether that would be an addition to the pulp_file plugin, >>

Re: [Pulp-dev] PUP Process: "obvious consensus"

matter. I think >> this is a good compromise between the extremes of "broad buy-in" and >> "default to change." >> >> >> David >> >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Including the pulp-deb plugin in pulp 2.14

to watch one upload a .deb file, publish the repo > etc. > > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> This is great! Thanks @misa. It looks like pulp_deb is ready to be >> included in 2.14! >> >> As an aside, I ta

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pull Request builder job changes for plugins

b is marked as > successful. > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> After thinking about this more, I realized that for the remainder of >> Pulp2 at least, we need to have the plugin unittest runner test against the >

[Pulp-dev] Call for Presenters: Community Demo, Thursday May 4

The next community demo is scheduled for Thursday, May 4 at 14:00 UTC [0]. If you've done any of the following as part of the sprint, please consider signing up as a presenter [1]. - Notable feature - Notable bugfix - QE update/activity This will be a live community event. Please sign up soon so

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp and multi region support.

I agree with Mihai's suggestion to distribute the content Pulp produces and not Pulp itself. Here are two ways to distribute content between two regions. 1) Have a standalone Pulp installed in each region, and have one Pulp sync from what the other Pulp publishes. This allows you to delivery

[Pulp-dev] Foreman Community Survey

I want to share a link to the Foreman community survey [0]. A couple of quick highlights: * Of all Foreman users, 34.8% are using Katello (which uses Pulp) * Of the users "managing content" using Foreman, 50% are using Katello and 17.2% are using Pulp standalone. * Debian is the most desired

[Pulp-dev] Asyncio Downloader Revisions

Based on some feedback to the pulpcore.plugin.downloader.asyncio downloaders, two main changes have been introduced since their first merge a week ago. 1. A synchronous interface called fetch(). This hides the event loop for simple usage. 2. Improved docs organization with more examples and

[Pulp-dev] Call for Presenters: Community Demo, Thursday September 28

The next community demo is scheduled for Thursday, September 28 at 14:00 UTC [0]. If you've done any of the following as part of this sprint [1], please consider signing up as a presenter [2]. - Notable feature - Notable bugfix - QE update/activity This will be a live community event. Please

Re: [Pulp-dev] Requested Plugins Wiki page?

+1 to this being made. When its up, maybe send a link so we can add some content too. On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Austin Macdonald wrote: > Unless this already exists somewhere, I think it would be nice to have a > new wiki document called "Requested Plugins". For each

Re: [Pulp-dev] DRF 3.7.0 Issues

2.6.4 should have read 3.6.4 On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > Today DRF pushed 3.7.0 to PyPI which breaks the pulp, the docs builders > and vagrant environments. This issue is tracked here [0] along with a > workaround for your vagr

Re: [Pulp-dev] REST API Milestone/alpha?

+1 to working towards a REST API alpha overall. I am happy enough with the URLs structure. FYI I think the status API is missing from there maybe. Is it possible for us to get the API docs auto generating and posted online in the nightly docs? That way as we continue to change them, the nightly

Re: [Pulp-dev] REST API Milestone/alpha?

Yes scheduled actions are out. The reasoning is that other tools can manage the schedule and run commands against the Pulp API and get the same outcome. Those other tools are offering scheduling so much better than we were offering that feature. On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Austin Macdonald

[Pulp-dev] Publishing an Alpha

Pulp3 is nearing an alpha-ready point which means that it is not yet feature complete with the MVP doc [0], but it is ready for some plugin writing to be started (or at least planned). I want to check in how how we'll release deliver those bits and how we'll install those bits. ## Proposal (use a

[Pulp-dev] Community Infrastructure & Hosting

I've written out what I know about the current infrastructure that is supporting various aspects of the Pulp community [0]. This also includes a look at what we already are using and what some of our anticipated needs are going forward based on some recent discussion. [0]:

Re: [Pulp-dev] natural key fields (task #3025)

+1 On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > The Content model in pulpcore defines a 'natural_key_fields' tuple that > models inheriting from it need to populate with field names that make that > content type unique. At the same time each model defines database

Re: [Pulp-dev] Reconsidering PUP-3

Thanks @pcreech for all the comments. I also believe that switching to a cherry-picking model will provide many benefits. As a general FYI, the way PUP-3 is written, it allows us to adopt it (assuming it passes at vote) and then figure out how to roll it out later in coordination w/ release

Re: [Pulp-dev] [pulp-internal] Recommend #2950 be re-prioritized.

One of the things I heard was that we aren't sure why we have this custom storage backend. I was very surprised to hear that because it was developed and merged. I want to make sure we understand custom code we've written before we go too much further. I think that is why we put it on the sprint

[Pulp-dev] Asyncio I/O Downloaders

The next step in considering the asyncio downloaders is done and ready to be looked at. The PR made [0] replaces the existing downloaders and is "merge-ready". The best way to read about them is through their docs [1]. Here are some of its highlights: # Code size and docs * huge code savings by

Re: [Pulp-dev] Asyncio I/O Downloaders

wrote: > > > On 08/24/2017 09:51 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > > The next step in considering the asyncio downloaders is done and ready > to be looked at. The PR made [0] > > replaces the existing downloaders and is "merge-ready". The best way to > read about them i

Re: [Pulp-dev] REST API Milestone/alpha?

t 2:31 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > @Og, I think the plan is that Pulp3 won't manage consumers anymore so the > > /consumers/ API endpoint wouldn't be there. > > Thanks Brian, but what about other tasks that created scheduled actions? > --

[Pulp-dev] Deleting Celerybeat from Pulp3

In Pulp3 the amount of responsibility celerybeat has to have is very, very small. So small in fact that we can easily get rid of it! Here is my plan [0] for removing celerybeat with all the details. Here is another issue on documenting links to job scheduling softwares [1]. Please comment on the

[Pulp-dev] Next Pulp Community Demo - Nov 9

We have a community demo scheduled for tomorrow, but it has very few demos on the agenda. I'm cancelling it for tomorrow so we can deliver more content at our next regularly scheduled demo on Nov 9th. All the best, Brian ___ Pulp-dev mailing list

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 app location

Recently many of these setup.py files were deleted so now there is only: common/setup.py <-- going away anyway with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3066 platform/setup.py plugins/setup.py I think it's good to have the folder use the python namespace names. If we did that it would be

Re: [Pulp-dev] Infrastructure tracker on pulp.plan.io

[0] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/packaging/issues > [1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3124 > [2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3116 > [3] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2908 > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> I made a

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >