Re: [Pulp-dev] API for repairing bitrot -- input requested

FYI, this is for issue: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5613 On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:24 AM Brian Bouterse wrote: > A "repair" feature is being planned that will check-and-re-download all > Artifacts associated with a RepositoryVersion. The last thing for us to > work

[Pulp-dev] Re-downloading Corrupted Content (solving bit rot)

A feature is being discussed on re-downloading corrupted content. There are some questions about how to position the API, the locking, and how it interacts with repo versions that allow 404 errors to still complete a repo version. Questions posted here: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5613#note-3

Re: [Pulp-dev] Hanging tasks (reloaded)

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:15 AM Matthias Dellweg wrote: > Hello all, > I believe i have found a new incarnation of hanging tasks (tm). This > time it is pulp3 and as hard to nail down as ever. > I think, it is introduced by e36e7b5f0eccc176a6e6298df29293b014f4710c. > Can you link me to this

[Pulp-dev] SELinux repository renamed to pulp/pulpcore-selinux

A suggestion was given [0] to have the SELinux repo renamed from pulp/pulp-selinux to pulp/pulpcore-selinux. That was done just now. The SELinux policy for Pulp3 now lives here: https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore-selinux Suggestions or concerns are welcome. [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5994

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal: Changing in 3.1 that Artifact.save() will hard-link/copy, not move

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:02 PM Simon Baatz wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:45:54PM -0500, Brian Bouterse wrote: > >We had two bugs filed recently [0][1] which suggest that when using > the > >default backend for Pulp, i.e. pulpcore.app.models.storage.FileSystem

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal: Changing in 3.1 that Artifact.save() will hard-link/copy, not move

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 6:10 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > It's not finished, but I have a POC with tests passing locally for me > here: https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/486 It does use the reflink > library and falls back to copy. > > What still needs to be done is: > * To ensure

[Pulp-dev] 3.1 GA plan -- Jan 30th

David and I are coordinating the 3.1 pulpcore release. We are proposing we release 3.1 on Jan 30th, and have it be a time-based release. Tentatively, we hope to release about a pulpcore y-release every month for the foreseeable feature. It's also worth noting that 3.1 could bring breaking changes

Re: [Pulp-dev] CI/CD meeting notes

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:05 PM David Davis wrote: > *January 8, 2020* > > >- > >https://github.com/pulp/plugin_template/pull/165 >- > > Looks good, mikedep333 to approve > - > >https://github.com/pulp/plugin_template/pull/164 >- > > Speed improves or

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal: Changing in 3.1 that Artifact.save() will hard-link/copy, not move

where some cases may not cleanup the worker directory which would now leave those files around forever. I will resume on those things tomorrow. On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:32 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:02 PM Simon Baatz wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 07,

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.0.1 -- dev freeze Jan 13

I propose we release pulpcore 3.0.1 on Jan 14th. To do that, please have any bugfixes for inclusion merged to master by end of business Jan 13th. There will be no backwards incompatible changes for users or plugin writers, so plugin releases won't be necessary. Plugins should release z-stream

[Pulp-dev] Proposal: Changing in 3.1 that Artifact.save() will hard-link/copy, not move

We had two bugs filed recently [0][1] which suggest that when using the default backend for Pulp, i.e. pulpcore.app.models.storage.FileSystem Pulp should not be "moving" files. This is the default behavior Django gives us, and it destroys data when sync'ed from file:/// for example [1]. I propose

Re: [Pulp-dev] Moving Content Guard Authorization to Webserver and out of pulp-content

testing with their configs. https://connect2id.com/products/server/docs/guides/tls-proxy I'll post my findings and bump this list also for more input. > Thanks! > > Justin > On 3/11/20 2:58 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:34 PM Justin Sherril

[Pulp-dev] Moving Content Guard Authorization to Webserver and out of pulp-content

tl;dr: What we have today cannot work with rhsm certificates which Katello uses. To resolve, we need to have content guard checking moved to the webserver configs for apache and nginx and not done in pulp-content as it is today. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6323 We need to bring the auth to where

Re: [Pulp-dev] Moving Content Guard Authorization to Webserver and out of pulp-content

verall having auth that is based on TLS certificates brought me to the conclusion that we need to auth where the TLS is terminated. What do you think? More thoughts and questions are welcome. This is a good discussion. On 3/11/20 2:11 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > > tl;dr: What we have tod

Re: [Pulp-dev] Moving Content Guard Authorization to Webserver and out of pulp-content

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:18 PM Eric Helms wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 2:12 PM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> tl;dr: What we have today cannot work with rhsm certificates which >> Katello uses. To resolve, we need to have content guard checking moved

Re: [Pulp-dev] redmine process for katello-integration-related issues

Thanks for writing this up and sending! My only addition would be to also remove the P1, P2, P3 tags entirely after setting all tagged issues with 'katello' and setting their priorities based on the previous P1/P2/P3 label. Thank you! On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:32 PM Grant Gainey wrote: > Hey

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changelog conventions

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:53 PM David Davis wrote: > I took a look at django's release notes[0] and they seem to do a good job. > They use past simple tense for the most part so I went with that. Here's a > PR: > > https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/579 > This is great, thank you! >

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.3.0 GA timeline

We are planning to release pulpcore==3.3.0 GA on April 8th. While we strive for time-based releases, here are two items that we are hoping to include based on feedback from Katello who would like to consume 3.3.0 in their upcoming releases. * The new repository repair API /pulp/api/v3/repair/ -

[Pulp-dev] Certguard compatibility with Centos/RHEL7

Here's a recap of a plan between @jsherrill @sajha @ehelms and myself around adding a feature to certguard that will provide compatibility with Apache 2.6.4. Currently certguard is compatible only with Apache 2.6.10+. Below is a summary of the plan. * pulp_certguard to introduce compatibility

Re: [Pulp-dev] redmine process for katello-integration-related issues

s well >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- tag katello-related issues as 'Katello' >>>>>>>- use the milestone field to define the >>>>>>>planned-pulp-release-version >>>>>>>- use the Priority field to

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file 1.0

ps://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/blob/master/CHANGES.rst > > David > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:59 AM David Davis > wrote: > >> I feel differently especially when considering that most other Pulp >> plugins are at > 1.0. Can you explain why you think pulp_file s

Re: [Pulp-dev] Moving to travis-ci.com

nformation and settings though if we don't migrate. > This also sounds good to me. If you want to tag-team via irc or video we can do that. > David > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:21 PM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> OK now more than an annoyance, travis-ci.org not

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file 1.0

I've seen software live in the < 1.0 area for a long time and graduate when it's in broad, production use. That's a difficult thing to assess accurately, but to me, pulp_file hasn't reached that point. On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:20 PM David Davis wrote: > With the next release of pulp_file, I'd

Re: [Pulp-dev] MODIFIED issues

@daviddavis, +1 to the next steps you propose. Thank you for doing all this. On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:19 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > Thanks for the suggested automation, it would keep us more organised > with issues belonging to the right projects! > > How do we close everything which is

Re: [Pulp-dev] Moving to travis-ci.com

I don't know the answer to your question about capacity, but I've been hitting this "not-updating-github" issue a lot recently. +1 to moving everything to travis-ci.com. On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 1:55 PM David Davis wrote: > A week or two ago, build statuses for repos whose Ci is hosted on >

[Pulp-dev] Pulp Installer meeting minutes -- April 29, 2020

Topics - Do we still need the pulp_webserver_static_dir role var? - No, issue filed https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6601 - Do we need to install prereleases? https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6551 (able to install galaxy_ng without --pre) - Not for galaxy_ng, but

Re: [Pulp-dev] Required fields for models at the DB level

e9267d59282d62ada1fa36467a2d8f/pulp_rpm/app/serializers.py#L69 >> >> David >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:32 AM David Davis wrote: >> >>> This makes sense to me. I wonder if we should document what you've >>> outlined in the plugin wri

Re: [Pulp-dev] Moving to travis-ci.com

gt; >>>>> *Thank you for reaching out! We are sorry about the issue that you are >>>>> having.We are currently aware of a bug related to migrating repositories >>>>> from travis-ci.org <http://travis-ci.org> to travis-ci.com >>>>> <

Re: [Pulp-dev] Markdown docs - pulpcore and plugins

+1 to pulpcore and pulp_file switching to markdown. It's quicker to write and easier to read. Once a few days have passed for any concerns to be raised, if none are, then how about this for a plan? 1) merge your PR for pulp_file 2) verify that the docs show up on

Re: [Pulp-dev] fedorapeople.org fixtures

I'm +1 on stopping the use of fixtures on fedora people (see some reasoning below). I'd like to offer to contact the folks who host other Pulp infrastructure ( https://osci.io/ ) to inquire if they could standup an auto-refreshing container to serve fixtures. This would pull the container every

[Pulp-dev] Role Based Access Control for Pulp -- starter document/proposal and a design call

I've compiled a starter document on Role Based Access Control (RBAC) needs and possible solutions for Pulp. The document is here: https://hackmd.io/6rmwt_tgQTuFsfAJ4B2sXw and includes * motivating examples * requirements I've heard from various stakeholders * several viable technologies to

Re: [Pulp-dev] Markdown docs - pulpcore and plugins

major rework of its documentation, >>> but I would like to avoid having to do that twice in a row. ;-) >>> >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Quirin Pamp >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *From:* pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Markdown docs - pulpcore and plugins

Fabricio Aguiar > Software Engineer, Pulp Project > Red Hat Brazil - Latam <https://www.redhat.com/> > +55 11 999652368 > > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:53 AM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> I misunderstood the PR https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/386. I >&

Re: [Pulp-dev] fedorapeople.org fixtures

trail." > > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:03 PM David Davis wrote: > >> I agree with @ttereshc that having fixtures hosted somewhere provides >> value. >> >> @bmbouter, your proposal sounds like a good idea. Can you see if it's >> feasible this week?

Re: [Pulp-dev] Moving to travis-ci.com

OK now more than an annoyance, travis-ci.org not notifying github is preventing certguard from merging without me disabling the CI check :( I think we need to do this asap. On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 9:21 AM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I don't know the answer to your question about capac

Re: [Pulp-dev] [Pulp-list] Pulp 3 CLI MVP

I think having the commands namespaced by the plugin name would be an organized way to see what capabilities a given plugin is shipping. I imagine for pulpcore's commands they could be namespaced under 'core' or 'pulpcore'. Also +1 to 'pulp' command name. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:42 AM David

Re: [Pulp-dev] Role Based Access Control for Pulp -- starter document/proposal and a design call

at 11:15 AM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Thank you for the great discussion today. Here's a link to the recording: > https://youtu.be/WZNjPFxYvqQ > > Here is a link to the minutes/agenda from the meeting: > https://hackmd.io/9H2ry9EcT5Sa7-4QUG6iJg > > We're going to continu

Re: [Pulp-dev] RFC: pulp command line interface

Thank you for sharing this! Can a basic README be added showing a few things a user could try after installing it from source? I also put a few comments inline also. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 1:53 PM David Davis wrote: > Adding pulp-list to hopefully get user feedback on this. > > David > > > On

Re: [Pulp-dev] Building docs locally in dev-env?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:40 PM Grant Gainey wrote: > Hey folks, > > I am making some additions to the import-export docs and went to build > them locally so I could review formatting. Since the last time I did this a > month ago, I'm running into a problem. docs/Makefile now assumes that " >

[Pulp-dev] No-Retry Behaviour on Network Errors: call for feedback and concerns

tl;dr: pulp does not retry when there are network errors or the server hangs up. We are going to document this as part of this issue https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6624 Please share concerns or feedback with this plan before open floor on May 15th. # Background At open floor today we touched on how

Re: [Pulp-dev] Installer project

' was removed [done] On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:23 AM Ina Panova wrote: > > > Regards, > > Ina Panova > 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." >

Re: [Pulp-dev] fedorapeople.org fixtures

, 2020 at 12:25 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I filed this infrastructure ticket https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6638 for > fixtures.pulpproject.org and emailed osci.io contacts asking if they are > willing to make https://fixtures.pulpproject.org for us. I'll share back > to the thread with w

Re: [Pulp-dev] signing service interface

that SigningService would have to "switch-and-publish". If we can modify a SigningService then pulp-repo-users with repositories would just need to republish. What do you think about these outcomes? > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:03 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > >> From a goal

Re: [Pulp-dev] Installer project

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:48 AM David Davis wrote: > During triage today, a majority of the issues that came up were for the > installer but only a handful of people could really speak to these issues. > I proposed that we skip these issues during triage and let the installer > team triage them.

[Pulp-dev] Pulp Installer Meeting Minutes -- May 13th

I'm sending out the minutes to help @mikedep333 who is off today *Minutes* - Installer having a dedicated project in Redmine? - Create a new query for triage that disincludes issues with ‘Pulp 3 installer’ tag. - Add a public query that shows all issues with

Re: [Pulp-dev] No-Retry Behaviour on Network Errors: call for feedback and concerns

hat the resulting >> RFE: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6699 is hugely important. >> >> Justin >> On 5/12/20 4:41 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: >> >> tl;dr: pulp does not retry when there are network errors or the server >> hangs up. We are going to document t

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore Check-in Meeting Minutes: May 15th

Previous Action Items - [bmbouter] create proposal for https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4689 - dkliban to investigate auto generation of bindings docs - [bmbouter and dkliban] - Review https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/577 - [bmbouter, others] prometheus discussion on

[Pulp-dev] Consolidating plugin listing on pulpproject.org for user clarity?

Melanie, I'm sending via pulp-dev for more visibility, but I wanted to see what you think specifically. Recently a user gave us feedback via an issue on Pulp 3 pain points for usage [0]. A lot of it is code and docs, and we're working to address those, but the last bullet says: "On the project

[Pulp-dev] Pulp Certguard Overview Next Week and @ggainey Joining certguard Mini Team

tl;dr @ggainey is joining the pulp-certguard mini team, making him and I the mini team. Also, I'm hosting an open-and-recorded overview of pulp-certguard's features, code, test, and docs next week (details below). ## ggainey joining mini team Currently I'm the only person who is on the

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

I agree with that problem statement. pulp_file may want to have the same Content at two different paths in different RepositoryVersions (or even the same RepositoryVersion). Without this capability a user could never "move" where content lives in a RepositoryVersion if its already been placed in

Re: [Pulp-dev] signing service interface

>From a goals perspective, we're trying to strengthen the interface between Administrators configuring the signing service and plugin writers using that signing service. One way to make that very explicit is to have the contents of the public key live on the model itself (like we store keys on

Re: [Pulp-dev] Package in a different repo does not get added to package list on Module

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:07 AM Ina Panova wrote: > This has always been a grey area: > > what if the user who has created RepoA cannot access content to the repoB > and yet we are 'stealing' the content from repoB? > This isn't exactly related to your question but I wanted to share a thought.

Re: [Pulp-dev] PR Processor

This is excellent. +1 to merging, rolling out to plugins, and removing the old one. Thank you! On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:48 AM Ina Panova wrote: > Thank you for this work! > > > > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may

Re: [Pulp-dev] PR Processor

ng redmine. > > David > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:41 AM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> This is excellent. +1 to merging, rolling out to plugins, and removing >> the old one. >> >> Thank you! >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 7:48 AM Ina

Re: [Pulp-dev] Moving Content Guard Authorization to Webserver and out of pulp-content

thoughts, questions, or concerns you have. Next steps wise I will close the Epic I opened https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6323 and it's subtasks as WONTFIX. I will continue the pulp-certguard work on https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4664 -Brian On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:44 AM Brian Bouterse wrote

Re: [Pulp-dev] New pulpcore release (3.3.1?)

When I look at the all_task_dispatched ticket I see a feature; the TaskGroup not being in the plugin API I can see as a bug. If we release a feature I think it would need to be 3.4.0. This is inconvenient I know, but my concern is that if a feature gets released in Z stream even with good

Re: [Pulp-dev] Role Based Access Control for Pulp -- starter document/proposal and a design call

ds On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 4:42 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I've compiled a starter document on Role Based Access Control (RBAC) needs > and possible solutions for Pulp. The document is here: > https://hackmd.io/6rmwt_tgQTuFsfAJ4B2sXw and includes > > * motivating examples > *

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp Certguard Overview Next Week and @ggainey Joining certguard Mini Team

Here are the links to the video and recording from today. video: https://youtu.be/Htf90rgJQZI slides: https://hackmd.io/@pulp/HJ54ndWo8#/ On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:10 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > tl;dr @ggainey is joining the pulp-certguard mini team, making him and I > the mini team

Re: [Pulp-dev] Consolidating plugin listing on pulpproject.org for user clarity?

and the ideas to resolve. > Thanks, > Tanya > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:37 PM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> Melanie, >> >> I'm sending via pulp-dev for more visibility, but I wanted to see what >> you think specifically. Recently a user gave us feedback via a

Re: [Pulp-dev] BREAKING CHANGE: Pulp 3 Installer

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 2:31 PM James Cassell wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Fabricio Aguiar wrote: > > We are working to have pulp_installer > > published as a collection on > > galaxy > > > > As stated in [1] we had to rename our roles use

Re: [Pulp-dev] Any interest in prometheus integration for pulp?

Hi Adrian, Thanks for your email and PR Adrian. I am +1 on adding prometheus support in Pulp as an optional dependency that is also documented and tested. I commented on the PR with some requested changes. I can collaborate with you towards its merging, and anyone else is welcome to join too. If

Re: [Pulp-dev] Managing dependencies with Poetry - PoC

This POC outlines the pros and cons nicely. Thanks for sharing it. Not being able to work in editable mode tells me we can't fully adopt poetry currently, but maybe others fill differently. I would like to discuss unblocking the automated release machinery goal. To do that in the best way

[Pulp-dev] Katello/pulp 3 integration scrum notes

Note, next week's meeting is cancelled due to Pulpcon conflict. This was discussed with Katello on today's call. September 9, 2020 Pulp - Pulpcore - Dalley - Working on tasking bugs (stuck tasks, etc.) and slow orphan cleanup - Have been on the sprint for

Re: [Pulp-dev] New black version

FYI, this was merged at the pulpcore weekly meeting today. On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:22 PM David Davis wrote: > A new version of black was released which has fixed some of our docstring > and made a change to how trailing commas are handled. I've fixed a few of > the plugins (pulp_file,

[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore team meeting

## September 8, 2020 ### Previous action items * [dkliban] file a story to allow auto-publish and distribute * Done. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7469 * [bmbouter] to respond and close https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/659 * not done, moved forward to next week ### Topics * 3.7.0 is

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

participated in our release check in today! On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:20 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Per the new process, here's the tracker (with checklist) for 3.7.0's > release: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7463 Right now, the GA date is > slated for Sept 22nd. > > The first g

[Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

Per the new process, here's the tracker (with checklist) for 3.7.0's release: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7463 Right now, the GA date is slated for Sept 22nd. The first go/no-go meeting will happen in #pulp-meeting at the time below: Tuesday Sept 15th, 12pm - 12:30pm EDT.

[Pulp-dev] Recommended: Remove test `test_file_decriptors`

At the open floor today, there was support for removing this one particular test from all plugins. I've removed it from these places, but other plugins should consider removing it also. pulpcore: was not used plugin_template: https://github.com/pulp/plugin_template/pull/260 pulp_file:

Re: [Pulp-dev] github checklist as a part of the release process

This is great, thank you. On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 7:31 AM David Davis wrote: > I've added a release template checklist to the pulpcore project. I am > hoping we can test it out with the next release of pulpcore. > > David > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:11 AM David Davis > wrote: > >> On Fri,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Unblocking SigningService hash check PR

gt; SigningService base class?), but I suppose I will just have to re-watch the > meeting. > I also get the feeling, continuing SigningService work isn't at the top of > anyone's To-Do list right now. We will see who blinks first. > ------ > *From:* Brian Bouters

Re: [Pulp-dev] Raising the pulpcore requirement for plugins

Hi Quirin, Apologies for the long delay. Thank you for bringing this up. I wrote some responses inline with what I believe to be true. More questions are welcome! On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 3:51 AM Quirin Pamp wrote: > So far, I have been mindlessly raising the pulpcore requirement by one Y >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 CLI PoC Feedback

I'm excited to use this. I went to try it, but the CLI's requests wouldn't trust the server which uses self-signed certificates. When running `pulp status` I get this error: requests.exceptions.SSLError: HTTPSConnectionPool(host='localhost', port=443): Max retries exceeded with url:

Re: [Pulp-dev] Squeezer compatibility release

This is great, thank you. Do you want to advertise this to pulp-list also? On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:52 AM Matthias Dellweg wrote: > Hey folks, > Following the release of pulpcore 3.6 that had breaking changes around > the api documentation (used by those ansible modules) we have just >

[Pulp-dev] Proposal: Basic Functional Test Requirement with each Feature or Bugfix

I have two goals with this: 1. Improve the stability of pulpcore and it's plugins 2. Enable all downstreams and packagers with tests and information on how to run those tests, so they can run the automated tests even as the downstream is curated with a series of backports. This closely follows

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.7 tentative release date -- Sept 22nd

This was discussed at open floor today. ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] When to declare Pulp safe for multi-user?

a Panova wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Ina Panova >> 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." >> >

Re: [Pulp-dev] problem: version locking plugins to pulpcore

s before actually >> removing the code or introduce any backward incompatible change. >> >> Tanya >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:09 AM Matthias Dellweg >> wrote: >> >>> This sounds pretty much the same as i had in mind. Thank you for writing >&g

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.6.4 is Generally Available

pulpcore 3.6.4 is available on PyPI[0]. This release fixes bindings issues caused by a dependency that released backwards incompatible changes[1]. # Installation and Upgrade Users should use the 3.6.4 release of pulp_installer[2] to install or upgrade their installations. This version of the

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

* Once the installer and pulpcore bits are available (both 3.7.0 and 3.6.4) announcements will go to pulp-list On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:15 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > 3.7.0 is technically released, but the pulp_file PR is failing due to a > variety of reasons. I'll continue on it (and the

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

with galaxy_ng upgrading to the latest pulpcore, pulp_ansible, and pulp_container. pulp_rpm I also think is likely On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:29 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Through IRC discussion here's what we learned: > > * it's generally agreed plugins should not switch their pulpcore version

Re: [Pulp-dev] Disabling merge by commit

of the docs was changed for real via > "git blame". > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:11 AM David Davis wrote: > >> I agree that merging by squash is potentially unsafe. I'll disable it for >> pulpcore and pulp_file unless anyone objects. >> >> David >

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

3.7.0 is technically released, but the pulp_file PR is failing due to a variety of reasons. I'll continue on it (and the pulp_ansible release PR also failing) tomorrow. I still need to release the installer, and then proceed with the announcements. On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:13 PM Brian Bouterse

Re: [Pulp-dev] PR merging

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 7:35 AM Ina Panova wrote: > > > > Regards, > > Ina Panova > 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 Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:38 PM David Davis wrote: > >>

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

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:05 AM Quirin Pamp wrote: > Of course these options are not mutually exclusive. We could decide on > some theme (e.g.: pulp_ansible theme) and then have both pulpcore and all > plugins consistently use that theme. > I do quite like the sphinx_rtd_theme used by pulpcore,

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

:51 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > At the go/no-go check in today, we determined the 3.7.0 is on-track for > the Sept 22nd release date. > > The next check-in meeting on #pulp-meeting is set up for Friday Sept 18th, > 12pm - 12:30pm EDT. https://everytimezone.com/?t=5f63f880,3c0 > &g

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.7.0 Release Timeline & Go/No-Go Chat Meeting

7.0 is published but not announced. > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:11 PM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> A lot of progress was made today, the final 3.7.0 and several plugin >> compatibility releases should go out tomorrow. >> >> * 3.6.4 pulpcore and its installer are full

Re: [Pulp-dev] Disabling merge by commit

I'm in favor of only the rebase & merge option everywhere. Our commit association machinery relies on commits not being modified, so I don't think the "squash and rebase" is a safe option for us. I am glad we are no longer using merge commits also. On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:39 AM Tatiana

Re: [Pulp-dev] CLI team meeting notes

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 3:31 PM Robin Chan wrote: > > Robin Chan > > She/Her/Hers > > Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp > > Red Hat > > IRC: rchan > > Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to > answer this email out of your

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp Installers Meeting Minutes - May 27th

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike DePaulo wrote: > May 27, 2020 > >- > >Readying pulp_installer for 3.4.0 release >- > > https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/302/ > - > > https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/303/ > - > > @dkliban to

[Pulp-dev] Signing Service Meeting Schedule on #pulp-meeting

I'd like to organize a discussion around the following topics on #pulp-meeting. It affects several folks so we should get together. Here's the open agenda (feel free to add to it): https://hackmd.io/k5xm4WZ7QpeX0HF80XS9OQ I'm tentatively setting the time for June 11 @ 10am EDT. Please let me

Re: [Pulp-dev] Signing Service Meeting Schedule on #pulp-meeting

New time based on feedback: Wednesday June 10th, 11AM EDT. On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:45 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I'd like to organize a discussion around the following topics on > #pulp-meeting. It affects several folks so we should get together. > > Here's the open agenda (feel

[Pulp-dev] mitmproxy: a great tool when debugging TLS client <-> server connections

I recently used mitmproxy for pulp_ansible development, and it was a great experience. I want to document the tool for plugin writers, so I filed [0]. It outlines how I used the tool. I figured advertising that docs issue on pulp-dev was a good way to get the word out. [0]:

[Pulp-dev] Spam Plan - collect links to spam instead of deleting them

tl;dr: instead of deleting spam from plan.io, leave it there, and put a link to it onto this hack.md [0] instead. You can still "lock" users if you want, but don't delete users anymore please. [0]: https://hackmd.io/pgLMbArqRbmW6rV3CJ8kQA In the coming weeks, @lubos will be making a spam cleanup

[Pulp-dev] Security Scanning Features Pulp Content

One way Pulp could create more value for users is by security scanning content it stores. There are some established projects out there for example, for containers and python code. I've filed two epics to track the addition of those features to both pulp_container and pulp_python: pulp_container

[Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

This thread is where progress made on the RBAC design/implementation from anyone can be posted. This is designed to bring both transparency and inclusivity so anyone can get involved on a daily basis. Today I outlined a scope of work document - https://hackmd.io/kZ1oYp8TTkeuC5KL_ffjGQ Next

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

Thank you for bringing this up. Do we know what needs to be done to resolve this? I filed this task to fix the minutes not being recorded, and added it to the open floor agenda also. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6791 On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:06 PM Fabricio Aguiar wrote: > I just noticed one

Re: [Pulp-dev] Signing Service Meeting Schedule on #pulp-meeting

ulp-dev-boun...@redhat.com on > behalf of Brian Bouterse > *Sent:* 01 June 2020 17:42:17 > *To:* Pulp-dev > *Subject:* Re: [Pulp-dev] Signing Service Meeting Schedule on > #pulp-meeting > > New time based on feedback: Wednesday June 10th, 11AM EDT. > > On Fri, May 29,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Unblocking SigningService hash check PR

to [0]). I can help review and guide that contribution if someone is interested. [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/659#issuecomment-693658607 On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:48 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Sorry for the long delay in reply. Thank you for the email. I also want to > u

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

y breaking the ansible usecase. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 5:56 PM Grant Gainey wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:38 AM Dennis Kliban > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 11:22 AM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >>> > >

Re: [Pulp-dev] RBAC Status Thread

in this area is to add this to the docs only. Plugin writers will *not* need to add permissions for prior existing objects. On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 5:59 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > Alright we're close to the end of pulpcore's RBAC additions for 3.6, but > there are still some challanges!

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >