Re: [Pulp-dev] pull request test results are now publicly available

+1 So great! Thanks, Dennis! On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > That is great! Thanks for making this happen. > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Dennis Kliban > wrote: > >> The Jenkins pull request test jobs are now configured

[Pulp-dev] Next IRC bug triage, Tuesday April 18

Due to upcoming holidays bug triage meeting is canceled this Friday. Do not forget to join next triage session on #pulp-dev on freenode. It is scheduled for Tuesday April 18 at 14:30 UTC. See you there, Tanya ___ Pulp-dev mailing list

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

+0 Tanya On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:43 PM, David Davis wrote: > +0 > > > David > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Bihan Zhang wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Michael Hrivnak >> wrote: >> >>> +0 >>> >>> On

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

+1 Thanks, Brian! Tanya On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Davis wrote: > +1. I think this is worth trying out. > > > David > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Austin Macdonald > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Thank you Brian! >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017

Re: [Pulp-dev] Developing Pulp 2 and 3 in parallel

JFYI, there is a Vagrant deep dive on Pulp channel and in case you'd like to take a quick look there was a section [0] about multiple boxes in this video. [0] https://youtu.be/0LDoNPIZyzk?t=37m44s On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:54 PM, David Davis wrote: > I wanted to run Pulp

[Pulp-dev] FilterSets in plugin API

There are FilterSets [0][1] defined for master models, so they can be used as-is or extended by plugin for detail models. Currently they don't seem to be available via plugin API and plugin defines its own FilterSet [2]. Is it intentional? I suggest to add them to pulpcore.plugin. Thanks, Tanya

[Pulp-dev] Triage lead role is open

Hi everyone, I'm rotating off of the triage lead, and I'm looking for someone else to rotate on and run triage. The triage process happens on IRC every Tuesday and Friday at 10:30 ET. Read more about the process here [0]. Please reply-all if interested. [0]:

Re: [Pulp-dev] Voting for PUP 4: Code of Conduct

+1 On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Ina Panova wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Ina Panova >> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >> >> "Do not go where the path may

Re: [Pulp-dev] Lazy for Pulp3

Thanks Justin! +1 to consider this use case, I can confirm that many users asked for that. Tanya On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Justin Sherrill wrote: > > > On 05/16/2018 01:02 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > > A mini-team of @jortel, @ttereshc, @ipanova, @dkliban, and

[Pulp-dev] Volunteer is needed to work on Pulp 2 issue #3687

Hi all, A gentle reminder that we need someone to work on the mongoengine 0.14+ issue #3687 as soon as possible. Thank you, Tanya [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3687 ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com

Re: [Pulp-dev] Volunteer is needed to work on Pulp 2 issue #3687

Daniel, thanks for working on that! Tanya On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > A gentle reminder that we need someone to work on the mongoengine 0.14+ > issue #3687 as soon as possible. > > Thank yo

[Pulp-dev] Stories to groom

Hi all, Can someone review and groom the following stories for the upcoming sprint planning? https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3339 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3353 Thanks, Tanya ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com

Re: [Pulp-dev] Stories to groom

Solved. Thanks On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:55 PM, Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Can someone review and groom the following stories for the upcoming sprint > planning? > > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3339 > https://pulp.plan.io/issu

Re: [Pulp-dev] Requiring 2FA in Github

+1, enabled. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:02 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > +1, but I already have it enabled. > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:53 PM, David Davis > wrote: > >> I got a notification from another organization I am a member of on >> Github[0] that they are going to require Two Factor

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposed Update to PUP-4

+1 On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > +1 Thank you! > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Dana Walker wrote: > >> A PR [0] is up with a proposed update to PUP-4: Code of Conduct [1]. >> >> The proposal changes the details of where the Code of Conduct is to be >>

Re: [Pulp-dev] Migrating Sprint to Custom Field [happening tomorrow]

Thank you! My late but big +1. Tanya On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > Thanks for all the feedback! With many +1s and no -1s, I'm going to make > this change tomorrow. I'll send out links to the result when it is done. > > -Brian > > > On Mon, Mar 5,

[Pulp-dev] 2.16.0 dev freeze -- 22:00 UTC Tuesday, March 13th

Any Pulp2 core or plugin code that you want included in the 2.16.0 release must be: a) merged to master by 22:00 UTC, March 13th b) associated with a story, refactor, task or a bugfix issue. If you want/need to adjust this date, please reply on list. Thanks, Tanya

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.16.0 dev freeze -- 22:00 UTC Tuesday, March 13th

The code for 2.16.0 is now frozen. There are a total of 9 stories/tasks/refactors prepared for the release: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=61 Tanya On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: > Any Pulp2 core or plugin code that you want

[Pulp-dev] 2.18.0 Dev Freeze - Tuesday, November 6 at 20:00 UTC

This is a reminder that the dev freeze for 2.18.0 will be on Tuesday if everything goes as planned. This release is going to contain the features listed here[0]. [0] https://pulp.plan.io/versions/64 ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.18.0 Dev Freeze - postponed

2.18.0 Dev Freeze is postponed until next week. The updated schedule can be seen here: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/2180_Release_Schedule Tanya On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 2:54 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > Due to the applicability feature being critcal but not being complete

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.18.0 Dev Freeze - postponed, Thursday, November 8 at 20:00 UTC

: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/2180_Release_Schedule Tanya On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:37 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > This is a reminder that the dev freeze for 2.18.0 will be on Tuesday if > everything goes as planned. This release is going to contain the features > list

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.18.0 Dev Freeze, last chance to merge

If you have any feature or bugfix for 2.18.0 which are not merged yet, please merge it today. 2.18.0 Dev Freeze is today at 22:59:59 UTC. Tanya On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 8:35 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > 2.18.0 Dev Freeze is postponed until next week. > > The updated schedule can be

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.18.0 Dev Freeze - Tuesday, September 18 at 16:00 UTC

The 2.18.0 beta release of Pulp is delayed by one more day. If no issues come up, it should be available on Wednesday, October 3rd. On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:11 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > The 2.18.0 beta release of Pulp is delayed by one week. It should be > available on Tuesday, October 2nd. >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

ncouraged to do? > > David > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:58 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko > wrote: > >> Thank you all for the discussion so far. >> The question - the type field and namespacing in content summary - is >> solved with https://pulp.plan.io/issues/41

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

the next couple of days. Thank you, Tanya On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > Since we are leaning towards prepending types for _all_ master/detail > models and not only for the content model, that Django fix is no longer > important for us. > > Tanya

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

General discussion: - We had a discussion about a commit bit to pulp/pulp_rpm for QE team. Everyone who was present is on board. Many team members were out today, so the final decision is deferred till they are back. Pulp 2: - Modularity issues are solved and merged, thanks to

Re: [Pulp-dev] QE commit bit

+1 On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 8:32 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > This all sounds good to me. > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:25 PM Kersom wrote: > >> Robin, yeap. Exactly what you described it. >> >> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:22 PM Robin Chan wrote: >> >>> Great. I withdraw: >>> #3. Shall we also

[Pulp-dev] pin pulpcore?

With more plugins going Beta and with frequent releases of pulpcore and pulpcore-plugin an issue with dependencies version showed up: - plugin requires pulpcore-plugin == 0.1.0bX - pulpcore-plugin 0.1.0bX requires pulpcore >= 3.0.0bY - at some point pulpcore introduces backward incompatible

[Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

There is an issue [0] of colliding type names in the content summary which evolved into more general namespacing problem for plugins. The suggested changes [1] are: 1. include plugin name into the content summary "content_summary": { "pulp_rpm.package": 50, "pulp_rpm.errata": 2,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/38/files#diff-debb42c875c19140793de39be3696ee3 > > David > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:41 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko > wrote: > >> There is an issue [0] of colliding type names in the content summary >> which evolved into more general namespacing problem for

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

ases plugin writers might want to >>>> change the name (eg cases where you can't use type as the class name like >>>> File). >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:23 AM Brian Bouterse >>>> wrote:

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal: merge the content-app & streamer

+1 to merge +1 to have clear docs for plugin writers how to create their own content app On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:25 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > It was pointed out on IRC that plugins that have to supply their own > content app (such as docker) currently need to supply 2 implementations of > it

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal to remove 'notes' fields from the Pulp 3 RC

+1 On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:49 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > +1. Ty for bringing this up @dalley > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:47 AM Jeff Ortel wrote: > >> no objection >> >> On 12/3/18 10:32 PM, Daniel Alley wrote: >> >> *Background:* >> >> "Notes" are a generic key value store where data can be

Re: [Pulp-dev] Distributing Pulp3 Plans

+1 On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 5:54 PM Daniel Alley wrote: > No objection > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:52 AM Jeff Ortel wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On 12/1/18 6:01 AM, David Davis wrote: >> >> +1 from me. >> >> David >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM Dennis Kliban >> wrote: >> >>> No objections

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore-3.0.0b15 and pulpcore-plugin-0.1.0b13 available

The following packages are now available on PyPI: - pulpcore 3.0.0b15 [0] with its release notes here [1] - pulpcore-plugin 0.1.0b13 [2] with its release notes here [3] The beta documentation is available here [4]. [0]: https://pypi.org/project/pulpcore/3.0.0b15/ [1]:

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - modularity issues are on the sprint [0], dalley is working on them. - module dep solving story [1], dalley or jortel will take a look at the corresponding PR to see if it requires any adjustments Pulp 3: - Agreement reached with the stakeholders that it's ok to publish

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

late/app/__init__.py#L8 >> >> `endpoint_namespace = rpm` or `short_label = rpm` >> >> Result: /api/v3/content/rpm/packages/ >> >> The downside is that every plugin would need 1 more line of code. The >> upside is that we could implement it exactly sam

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jeff Ortel wrote: > > > On 1/9/19 11:30 AM, Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > > To summarize where we are so far: > *All* master/detail related endpoints will be automatically prepended > with Django app *label* [0] > - concer

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

To summarize where we are so far: *All* master/detail related endpoints will be automatically prepended with Django app *label* [0] - concerns: 'pulp_' in the label - options to address concerns: * introduce a new attribute to the AppConfig class to use in the endpoints

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal to drop support of Python 3.5 for Pulp 3

Big +1 Tanya On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:50 PM, David Davis wrote: > +1 > > David > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:35 AM Jeff Ortel wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On 09/07/2018 01:09 AM, Simon Baatz wrote: >> > I had a discussion on IRC with Brian yesterday which led to the >> > question whether we can

Re: [Pulp-dev] Namespacing plugins, looking for feedback

be possible to default to class name but let plugin writers >>> override this? I would imagine in some cases plugin writers might want to >>> change the name (eg cases where you can't use type as the class name like >>> File). >>> >>> David >>&g

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

avid >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM Daniel Alley wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> &g

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

General: - ppicka joined RPM mini-team - welcome :) Pulp 2: - dkliban to plan release of 2.19.1 soon to release the migration issue https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4617 and other bugfixes which will be completed in time for the release - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4631 Pulp

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

General: - changes in Fedora 30 - remaining items are being evaluated (see details in the previous e-mail) Pulp2 - there are few issues on the sprint, nothing urgent at the moment Pulp3 - installer updates - bmbouter plans to work with asmacdo in the upcoming days

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp2 - recursive copy docs https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4371 , in progress - should be done today - new libsolv package, QE are blocked - if no news from the build team by the end of the week, bring up on Monday meeting Pulp3 - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4424 -

Re: [Pulp-dev] Skipping plugin issues during triage

+1 to triage only pulp2/pulp3 core + pulp3 file plugin at that IRC meeting. We are doing it de facto anyway. It would be less !skip-!accept for a triage leader. ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp2: - https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1269 approved, about to merge +1 +1 - AI: Ina to check with stakeholders if there is any required release date - checked, we can release according to our schedule Pulp 3: - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4424 - How

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

+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

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp2 - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4477 modular errata publication issue - on the sprint - should it be considered as a blocker for upcoming 2.19.0 - ttereshc will work on it - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4541 packages are published twice, in different layouts -

[Pulp-dev] regenerate plugin migrations

The app label changed for the core, PR is merged [0]. Since plugin migrations depend on the core ones, please, regenerate migrations for the plugins you use after pulling the latest changes from the master branch. E.g. for pulp_file: remove everything from the migrations directory of the plugin,

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp2 - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4477 modular errata publication issue - needs to be worked on sooner rather than later, added to the sprint Pulp3 - Sync is failing https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4505#note-2 - likely a problem in core but easy to reproduce with RPM plugin

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file ownership

+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

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

gt;>> 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. >>> >>

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.19.0 Dev Freeze , Monday, March 18 at 23:59 UTC

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:34 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > A 2.19.0 is planned to be released soon with some features and recent > fixes [0]. > The dev freeze for 2.19.0 will be on Monday. > > At the moment GA is expected to be on April 2. > More detailed schedule with t

[Pulp-dev] 2.19.0 Dev Freeze , Monday, March 18 at 23:59 UTC

A 2.19.0 is planned to be released soon with some features and recent fixes [0]. The dev freeze for 2.19.0 will be on Monday. At the moment GA is expected to be on April 2. More detailed schedule with the tentative dates for each Beta/RC/GA build will be posted in this thread later. [0]

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

General: - We should track changes in Fedora and evaluate impact on Pulp - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/30/ChangeSet - any volunteers? - Daniel(@dalley) - Possibly relevant changes: - Zchunk Metadata

[Pulp-dev] Replicate a directory structure of a remote repo or not?

RPM plugin team discussed this question recently and we are leaning towards a conclusion that by default Pulp is expected to publish a repo with a directory structure of a remote repository. E.g. At the moment if no base_path is configured for a distribution, those two repositories [0][1] (same

Re: [Pulp-dev] Replicate a directory structure of a remote repo or not?

+pulp-list On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 6:14 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > RPM plugin team discussed this question recently and we are leaning > towards a conclusion that by default Pulp is expected to publish a repo > with a directory structure of a remote repository. > > E.g

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

General discussion: - The commit bit to pulp/pulp_rpm has been given to QE team. - Codeowners [0] for functional tests in pulp/pulp_rpm - Agreed to add - AI: David to open PR to add codeowners. Add some docs to wiki. Pulp 2: - Potentially an issue with sync of Fedora 29

[Pulp-dev] app label changes merged, update your plugin

Hi all, There was a thread here about namespacing plugins + the idea of dropping `pulp_` from the app label. Those changes [0] are merged now and some plugins have already been updated. It is not necessary but it's encouraged to update the label of your plugin - to drop 'pulp_' part of it if you

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?

please >>> reach out via the "developer mailing list": >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev. >>> >>> --- commend end >>> >>> >> That looks great to me. >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - High priority issues? - publish race condition https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3098 - not RPM specific but affects RPM plugin as well (mostly noticeable for the Docker plugin) - volunteer is needed - Pulp 2 RPM bugs, mass closing - AI:

Re: [Pulp-dev] Release Note Process Improvements

+1 to improve release notes process If we decide to use PR numbers and not redmine issues in the release notes, then there will be no limitation/requirement to have a redmine issue to add something to the release notes. Tanya On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:46 PM David Davis wrote: > +1 to

[Pulp-dev] 2.20.0 Release Schedule

A 2.20.0 release is being planned with some features and recent fixes. Here [0] is a release schedule page which outlines some tentative dates, starting with a dev freeze on June 25, 2019 @ 23:00 UTC. The full list of features and bug fixes is not finalized yet, the current one can be found here

[Pulp-dev] uniqueness constraints within a repository version

A while ago RemoveDuplicates stage [0] was introduced to solve the problem of enforcing uniqueness constraints within a repository version at sync time. The same problem ought to be solved when content which already exists in Pulp is added to a repository. E.g. Content was uploaded, or content was

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - Modularity bug updates https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4693 - As noted, erroneous behavior reproduced w/ modules in the Fedora modules repo - It seems like a lot of modules are copied correctly, but some aren't. Trying to figure out the pattern. -

[Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 to 3 Migration meeting on Wednesday June 19th

An IRC meeting will be held on Wednesday June 19th at 12pm Eastern[0]. The meeting will take place in #pulp-2to3-sig on Freenode IRC network. Tentative agenda: - continue on use cases, see etherpad L18+ * especially distributors migration part * verify that everything is covered by the

Re: [Pulp-dev] black

-0 I'm usually all for consistency, and having standard style sounds good in theory. 1. What worries me is that there is basically no way back, we can't just try it out. Maybe waiting a bit to see if black has more adoption in the Python community and goes GA is not a bad idea. 2. Is now the

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.20.0 Release Schedule

A 2.20.0 dev freeze is scheduled for tomorrow, June 25, 2019 @ 23:00 UTC. Please make sure everything which should be in 2.20.0 is merged by then, including bug fixes. Thank you! On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 3:33 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > Just a reminder that a 2.20 dev freeze is approach

Re: [Pulp-dev] uniqueness constraints within a repository version

Do I understand correctly that it doesn't cover the sync case and it's only about explicit repo version creation? So the suggestion is to implement the same logic twice: for sync case - RemoveDuplicates stage and/or maybe some custom stage (e.g. to disallow overlapping paths), and for direct repo

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - Modularity bug updates https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4693 - investigation in progress - dalley planned to collaborate with QE Pulp 3: - bindings - docs updated - announcement sent - bmbouter/dkliban gave overview of how bindings are generated and

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 to 3 Migration meeting on Thursday June 14th

-meeting-June-13-2019.txt [1] https://etherpad.net/p/pulp-2to3-migration On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:56 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > An IRC meeting will be held on Thursday June 14rg at 10am Eastern[0]. The > meeting will take place in #pulp-2to3-sig on Freenode IRC network. > > Tent

[Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 to 3 Migration meeting on Thursday June 14th

An IRC meeting will be held on Thursday June 14rg at 10am Eastern[0]. The meeting will take place in #pulp-2to3-sig on Freenode IRC network. Tentative agenda: - go through use cases and see if we forgot anything, see etherpad L184+ [1] - verify that everything is covered by the current MP

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 to 3 Migration meeting on Wednesday June 19th

ig.2019-06-19-16.00.log.html [1] https://etherpad.net/p/pulp-2to3-migration On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:34 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > An IRC meeting will be held on Wednesday June 19th at 12pm Eastern[0]. The > meeting will take place in #pulp-2to3-sig on Freenode IRC network. >

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - Modularity bug updates https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4693 - a lot of progress - smash test is written, thanks to bherring Pulp 3: - JFYI, version for the master branch has been updated - master branch should always refer to .dev - more attention is needed

[Pulp-dev] Do you ever need to uninstall plugin and remove all data related to it?

Currently there is no [documented] way to remove data related to the Pulp 3 plugin after you uninstall it. What is the use case when it's important to uninstall a specific Pulp 3 plugin? Do you expect data to go away after plugin is uninstalled? If not, do you expect to have the ability to remove

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

*May **23**, 2019* Pulp 2: - schedule for 2.20 - dkliban and ttereshc discussed it the other day - ttereshc to put it together today Pulp 3: - simple copy PR https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1328 - there were some merge conflicts but its fixed now and ready to

Re: [Pulp-dev] breaking change: accept Null instead of empty string

+1 and +1 to allow only null and not both. Tanya On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 7:10 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:25 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > >> Pulp 3's REST API does not accept Null as a value for a string field. The >> only way for a user to unset a string field is

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - Some old issues which are fixed are still at ON_QA. daviddavis will move it to CLOSED-CURRENTRELEASE - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3047 - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3100 - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3115 - 2.19.1 work - low participation, probably

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp2: - Dev freeze for 2.19.1 is May 14 - Look for the pulp2 issues of the sprint, most of them should be fixed for 2.19.1 - the nice-to-have ones have comments that they are not critical to go into 2.19.1 specifically. - dkliban set platform release for 2.19.1

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

*June **2**7**, 2019* Pulp 2: - Modularity dep solving - fixes are not in 2.20.0 for now - refactoring and future PR: - https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1383 - issue with dependencies being spread across multiple repos - discussion with Katello is planned

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.20.0 Release Schedule

/2200_Release_Schedule On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:00 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > A 2.20.0 dev freeze is scheduled for tomorrow, June 25, 2019 @ 23:00 UTC. > Please make sure everything which should be in 2.20.0 is merged by then, > including bug fixes. > > Thank you! > > On Tue, Jun 18, 20

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - Modularity dep solving - automatic module_default copy works!! but is buggy, *crashes* - under investigation - "too many packages/modules are copied" issue - clear what to do, just needs to be done - Multiple source/target repositories support for recursive

[Pulp-dev] Few new fields are enabled in pulp.plan.io

Don't be surprised if you see 'Start date", "Due date" or "Estimated time" fields on any of the trackers for devs (issue/story/task/refactor) in pulp.plan.io. Those has been enabled to experiment with the Gantt chart feature. The fields may be disabled later, so don't rely on them being present.

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulpcore RC3 Updates and Planning

I agree, it's fine to do nothing until the state of the redmine issue is critical for Pulp 3 release process. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 3:47 PM David Davis wrote: > I think doing nothing for now makes sense. ON_QA doesn't seem to fit the > state of the issues and users can use the changelog for

Re: [Pulp-dev] Master-detail inheritance in Pulp 3

I'm leaning towards option 2 "defining one-to-one field". Are there any downsides of that approach apart from one more field specified by plugin writers? It will keep class names and autogenerated endpoints nice and less redundant, and fair for all the plugins. On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:31 PM

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?

Sounds good to me. One suggestion. How about asking for a contribution before closing, however only in cases when we expect to accept the contribution? e.g. not a huge or risky change, and the bug fix is important for a reporter. It will be clear for community that we are still willing to accept

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 tag

; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 3:48 PM Brian Bouterse < >>>>>&g

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp2: - many Pulp 2 items are on the sprint, including publish dir race condition - any deadlines/priorities? - need them in 2.19.1 (tentatively by the end of May) - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4534 Searching for modulemd_defaults without "profiles" field will crash:

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

+1 to drop MariaDB support On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 10:10 PM Brian Bouterse wrote: > I believe we have reached a point where Pulp (core and its plugins) can no > longer support MariaDB due to technical problems. I've been an advocate for > Pulp to support MariaDB because it's what our users

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

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 5:15 PM Dennis Kliban wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:27 AM Brian Bouterse > wrote: > >> Thank you for raising this concern. >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:06 AM Dennis Kliban >> wrote: >> >>> Users of Pulp 2 that are upgrading to Pulp 3 need to make files stored

Re: [Pulp-dev] artifact stages adjustment or any other solution?

Bump. Please provide feedback if you have any. I'll start working on the PR to make the suggested change this week otherwise. Thank you, Tanya On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 12:46 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > In RPM plugin we have Modulemd content. It comes from metadata as one file >

Re: [Pulp-dev] artifact stages adjustment or any other solution?

Austin, thank you. Your option is more explicit, so it's probably better. Tanya On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 6:38 PM Austin Macdonald wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:34 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko > wrote: > >> Bump. >> >> Please provide feedback if yo

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - Multi-repo copy update (dalley) - PRs ready for review - https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1420/ - https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3947 - Docs changes remain - Still no smash tests, will work with QE on this,

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - Multi-repo copy update (dalley) - 2 PRs - https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3947 - https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1420 - Still testing the 2nd one, not returning exactly the same results yet for the standard test cases

[Pulp-dev] artifact stages adjustment or any other solution?

In RPM plugin we have Modulemd content. It comes from metadata as one file and we parse it and then save each modulemd as a separate file/artifact. The question is how to handle this content in the sync pipeline. Modulemd content is artifactless on a remote source (metadata) but it's not

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

+1 to pin dependencies and use dependabot If we were to pin to Z releases, then we'd need to release pulp 3 package with any Z release of any dependency we pin. And in case of any [security] fix in any dependency, users would need to wait for us to release pulp with updated dependency version.

Re: [Pulp-dev] uniqueness constraints within a repository version

: > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:47 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 3:00 PM Brian Bouterse >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 6:23 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>> tt

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

If the goal is to make endpoints unified across all actions, then I think we can only do POST /pulp/api/v3//plugin/action/ types=[] Having plugin/content_type/upload would be nice, however I'm not sure if it covers enough use cases. E.g. For pulp_rpm, it makes sense for packages or advisories to

[Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

Pulp 2: - Dep solving - Finished the part which interacts with libsolv (the multi-repo copy feature is the last one left to close the dep solving features/bugs for pulp2) - No smash tests for the new stuff yet - *AI*: dalley will work with

  1   2   3   >