[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 104 Agenda

[Robin Chan]

Minutes have been published on discourse:
https://discourse.pulpproject.org/t/pulp-sprint-planning-meeting-minutes/57/3

Note we are moving forward with our drf token work this sprint.

Thanks,
Robin
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 103 Planning

[Robin Chan]

Meeting minutes have been posted to a new thread created on discourse (in
Meeting minutes section):
https://discourse.pulpproject.org/t/pulp-sprint-planning-meeting-minutes/57/2
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 99 Planning

[Robin Chan]

https://github.com/pulp/community/discussions/30

17-June-2021

New Sprint 99 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 98 Query


New - 29

Assigned - 12

Post - 14

Modified - 10

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 4

Closed - WORKSFORME - 1

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE - 2

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 2

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Retro discuss backlog management


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

 Alternate Content Sources
 -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  AH Operator backup & restore work
  -

  AH 4.4.0 release
  -

  AH high availability
  -

  AH performance and scale testing ( ansible and container plugins)


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * (pulp2) Need to investigate cert-issue 8000


  * disk usage during sync

  * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8295 - was a Lubos candidate but we’ll
put this one on hold.

  * content app performance testing / verification (dalley)

  * move to python 3.7 and django 3.2 for pulpcore==3.15

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8853

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8488

  * matrix bot (ppicka) (move to Q4 sheet of 3 month planning)
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 98 Planning

[Robin Chan]

2-June-2021

New Sprint 98 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 97 Query


New - 28 (!)

Assigned - 11

Post - 10

Modified - 8

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 23

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE - 1

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 6

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


   -

   Retro discuss backlog management


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

 Alternate Content Sources
 -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  AH Operator backup & restore work
  -

  AH 4.4.0 release (October)



Non-redmine tasks:

   -

   HTB support


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * (pulp2) Need to investigate cert-issue 8000


  * disk usage during sync

  * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8295 - was a Lubos candidate but we’ll
put this one on hold.

*  reclaim disk space https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8459 waits on katello
inputs

Pending Items:

None
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docs day revamp

[Robin Chan]

Great job! Thanks, Ina and team for making this happen.


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Senior Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Asian Network Co-Chair

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan

Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to
answer this email out of your office hours.
<https://www.redhat.com> [image:
https://source.redhat.com/communitiesatredhat/diversity_and_inclusion/asian_network]
<https://source.redhat.com/communitiesatredhat/diversity_and_inclusion/asian_network>
May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.
<https://source.redhat.com/communitiesatredhat/diversity_and_inclusion/asian_network/asian_pacific_american_heritage_month_2021>
We
recognize and celebrate the contributions of Asians and Pacific Islanders
to American society and culture.


On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:50 AM David Davis  wrote:

> Amazing job team!
>
> Thank you Ina for organizing this.
>
> David
>
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:29 AM Ina Panova  wrote:
>
>> Team,
>> I would like to recapitulate yesterday's Docs day. In a day we managed to
>> knock down 12 issues [0].
>>
>> Great job! Thanks to everyone who participated whether by submitting or
>> reviewing PRs.
>>
>> [0] https://tinyurl.com/rsv7m4c2
>>
>> 
>> 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, May 19, 2021 at 3:11 PM Robin Chan  wrote:
>>
>>> I went ahead and saved it:
>>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=174
>>> And should show up in the named queries on the right hand side
>>> And I'm seeing 16 items now.
>>>
>>> Robin Chan
>>>
>>> She/Her/Hers
>>>
>>> Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp
>>>
>>> Asian Network Co-Chair
>>>
>>> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>
>>> IRC: rchan
>>>
>>> Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to
>>> answer this email out of your office hours.
>>> <https://www.redhat.com> [image:
>>> https://source.redhat.com/communitiesatredhat/diversity_and_inclusion/asian_network]
>>> <https://source.redhat.com/communitiesatredhat/diversity_and_inclusion/asian_network>
>>> May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.
>>> <https://source.redhat.com/communitiesatredhat/diversity_and_inclusion/asian_network/asian_pacific_american_heritage_month_2021>
>>>  We
>>> recognize and celebrate the contributions of Asians and Pacific Islanders
>>> to American society and culture.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:18 AM David Davis 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Awesome, thanks for organizing this and putting together a query.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:54 AM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Pulpcore team met today and went a bit through the docs backlog.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the query with the list of  docs issues we are going to focus
>>>>> tomorrow May 19 https://tinyurl.com/ymctcr32
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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, May 5, 2021 at 2:05 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have marked May 19th in the outage calendar as Pulp Docs Day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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 Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 12:54 PM David Davis 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds good to me. Thank you for organizing this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 29, 202

Re: [Pulp-dev] Docs day revamp

[Robin Chan]

I went ahead and saved it:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=174
And should show up in the named queries on the right hand side
And I'm seeing 16 items now.

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Asian Network Co-Chair

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan

Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to
answer this email out of your office hours.
<https://www.redhat.com> [image:
https://source.redhat.com/communitiesatredhat/diversity_and_inclusion/asian_network]
<https://source.redhat.com/communitiesatredhat/diversity_and_inclusion/asian_network>
May is Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.
<https://source.redhat.com/communitiesatredhat/diversity_and_inclusion/asian_network/asian_pacific_american_heritage_month_2021>
We
recognize and celebrate the contributions of Asians and Pacific Islanders
to American society and culture.


On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 8:18 AM David Davis  wrote:

> Awesome, thanks for organizing this and putting together a query.
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 11:54 AM Ina Panova  wrote:
>
>> The Pulpcore team met today and went a bit through the docs backlog.
>>
>> Here is the query with the list of  docs issues we are going to focus
>> tomorrow May 19 https://tinyurl.com/ymctcr32
>>
>> 
>> 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, May 5, 2021 at 2:05 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>
>>> I have marked May 19th in the outage calendar as Pulp Docs Day.
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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 Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 12:54 PM David Davis 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds good to me. Thank you for organizing this.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 5:47 AM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> Historically we have had Docs Day before a release so we can get some
>>>>> more docs PRs in. But this did not work out well for us because of all the
>>>>> amount of work and commitments we had to fulfill just before the release
>>>>> date. Our focus was somewhere else which is understandable.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a new suggestion to organize Docs Day that would not be
>>>>> aligned to any release date. Folks would feel less stressed and have more
>>>>> time to actually prioritize docs issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently there are 73 doc issues spread across Pulp in the plan.io
>>>>> [0]
>>>>> And only 2 doc issues marked for the Q2 2021.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am suggesting each mini team, in preparation for the Docs Day to
>>>>> take an action item and go through the backlog and mark issues for the Q2
>>>>> 2021.
>>>>> Projects that are moved to github issues can apply an appropriate
>>>>> label.
>>>>>
>>>>> The proposed date for the next iteration of Docs Day would be May 19.
>>>>> By that time we should be over a pulpcore 3.13 release and the temperature
>>>>> should be relatively low.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> [0] https://tinyurl.com/r492c8s
>>>>> [1] https://tinyurl.com/ymctcr32
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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."
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>>>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minuets] Sprint 97 Planning

[Robin Chan]

14-May-2021

New Sprint 97 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 96 Query


New - 28

Assigned - 9

Post - 10

Modified - 12

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 7

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG - 1

Closed - DUPLICATE - 1

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 4


Action Items:

   -

   - rchan: send out planning minutes
   - Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues
   to new sprint
   - Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   - Reschedule summer sprint planning & retro


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status
   -

   Everybody gets to pick one day per sprint as their “no meetings today”
   day - put one of those on your calendars


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

 Alternate Content Sources
 -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  AH Operator backup & restore work
  -

  AH 4.4.0 release (October)


(Internal) Outages/Non-redmine tasks:
* note that there are a few holidays, docs day (May 19) during this sprint

Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * (pulp2) Need to investigate cert-issue 8000


  * content app performance (dalley)

  * disk usage during sync

  * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8295 - was a Lubos candidate but we’ll
put this one on hold (I added the Q2 tag)

Pending Items:

None
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] How to enable HTTPS for our tests in pulpcore and all plugins?

[Robin Chan]

Can someone enlighten me on the main motivation for making this change?
I wasn't at the meeting and just curious what other context I'm missing. I
definitely understand https > http from a security standpoint but wondering
if there were other factors or motivations I'm missing.

-rchan

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:53 AM David Davis  wrote:

> To confirm, the "latest" tag will continue to ship with http? I imagine
> most users will end up with http then.
>
> Also, what (if anything) do we do about y release tags (e.g. the upcoming
> 3.13 tag)? Do they continue to ship with http?
>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:51 AM Brian Bouterse 
> wrote:
>
>> a yis
>>
>> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:46 AM Fabricio Aguiar 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I changed https://github.com/pulp/pulp-oci-images/pull/73 to ship both,
>>> latest as is, and the new tag: https
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Fabricio Aguiar
>>> Software Engineer, Pulp Project
>>> Red Hat Brazil - Latam 
>>> +55 22 999000595
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 11:41 AM Brian Bouterse 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 to this observation, we probably need to either ship both or make it
 configurable somehow. Shipping both is probably easier on users.

 On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 5:11 AM Matthias Dellweg 
 wrote:

> This is a great piece of work!
> The problem I see is that the SSL free container image may be used in
> places we do not control. And having this http based container equipped
> with an external https reverse proxy is imho a valid use case.
> Therefore i would prefer, if we could provide both versions of the
> image (with and without SSL) as different tags.
> This would also give us the opportunity to switch the plugins one by
> one to use the new container.
> Ideally, the SSL container would be a thin OCI-layer on top of the
> http version.
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:10 PM Fabricio Aguiar 
> wrote:
>
>> I finally made pulp_container CI work with https,
>> I also did some changes on pulp_installer, I believe these changes
>> will make it possible to run functional tests on dev environment.
>>
>> I think now it is a matter of deciding when is the best time to merge
>> the PR on the single container and if latest tag should be https or not
>>
>> PRs:
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp-oci-images/pull/73
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_installer/pull/614
>> https://github.com/pulp/plugin_template/pull/379
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/1283
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/304
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1977
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_ansible/pull/572
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp-2to3-migration/pull/362
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Fabricio Aguiar
>> Software Engineer, Pulp Project
>> Red Hat Brazil - Latam 
>> +55 22 999000595
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 5:35 PM Fabricio Aguiar 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I created https branch:
>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp-oci-images/tree/https
>>> and pushed the following images:
>>> - pulp/pulp-ci-centos:https
>>> - pulp/pulp:https
>>>
>>> Now we can test on the plugins,
>>> I followed your suggestion and did it on pulp_npm:
>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_npm/pull/89
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Fabricio Aguiar
>>> Software Engineer, Pulp Project
>>> Red Hat Brazil - Latam 
>>> +55 22 999000595
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:25 AM David Davis 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 This is great. Thank you for working on it.

 As a next step, would it make sense to create a branch and then try
 to deploy a new temporary tag from that branch? Then maybe we can test 
 a
 plugin (eg pulp_npm) against this new image and see what breaks.

 David


 On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 5:01 PM Fabricio Aguiar <
 fagui...@redhat.com> wrote:

> I started this POC:
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp-oci-images/pull/73
> It enables https on the single container, once merged, the CI for
> every plugin will run the functional tests using https.
> Probably it would break the majority of the CIs, we need to
> discuss when is the best moment to merge this PR or discuss 
> alternatives
>
> Best regards,
> Fabricio Aguiar
> Software Engineer, Pulp Project
> Red Hat Brazil - Latam 
> +55 22 999000595
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:55 AM Fabricio Aguiar <
> fagui...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Our nginx conf only supports http now:
>> 

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Spring 96 Planning

[Robin Chan]

30-April-2021

New Sprint 96 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 95 Query


New - 23

Assigned - 16

Post - 7

Modified - 15

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 4

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 1

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status
   -

   Everybody gets to pick one day per sprint as their “no meetings today”
   day - put one of those on your calendars


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

 Pulpcore 3.10 (or newer)
 -

 FIPS support (needs to be in 3.11)
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  AH Operator backup & restore work
  -

  Deletion PRD finalized
  -

  AAP Testathon (May 11 and 12)
  -

  AH Fall release



Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * (pulp2) Need to investigate cert-issue 8000


Pending Items:

None
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 95 Planning Meeting

[Robin Chan]

16-April-2021

New Sprint 95 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 94 Query


New - 15

Assigned - 7

Post - 7

Modified - 7

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 7

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 5

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status
   -

   Everybody gets to pick one day per sprint as their “no meetings today”
   day - put one of those on your calendars


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

 Pulpcore 3.10 (or newer)
 -

 FIPS support (needs to be in 3.11)
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  AH Operator 1.0 testing starts late April



Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * (pulp2) Need to investigate cert-issue 8000


Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 94 Planning

[Robin Chan]

6-April-2021

New Sprint 94 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 93 Query


 New - 14

 Assigned - 5

 Post - 11

 Modified - 15

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 5

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE - 2

Closed - WONTFIX - 1

Closed - COMPLETE - 1


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status
   -

   Everybody gets to pick one day per sprint as their “no meetings today”
   day - put one of those on your calendars


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

 Pulpcore 3.10 (or newer)
 -

 FIPS support (needs to be in 3.11)
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  AH Operator 1.0 testing starts late April


   -

   Pulp-container for AAP( Ansible Automation Platform)
   -

  2.5.0 removing RBAC tech-preview label  - mid April


   -

   RHUI: autopublish 3.12 + file & rpm (April)
   -

  May 2021 for RHUI 4.0 feature-complete


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * moved out - Orphan cleanup running along-side other tasks (?)(medium)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7659

  * Need to investigate cert-issue 8000 
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 93 Planning Meeting

[Robin Chan]

19-March-2021

New Sprint 93 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 92 Query


 New - 13

 Assigned - 10

 Post - 12

 Modified - 8

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 21

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX - 1

Closed - COMPLETE - 7

Tuesday April 6 - Sprint planning

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
  -

 Pulpcore 3.9
 -

 Pulp-2to3-migration work for 4.0 GA - 10th of March 2021
 -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

 Pulpcore 3.10 (or newer)
 -

 FIPS support (needs to be in 3.11)
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  AH Operator testing starts late April


   -

   Pulp-container for AAP
   -

  2.5.0 removing RBAC tech-preview label  - mid April


   -

   RHUI: autopublish 3.12 + file & rpm (April)
   -

  May 2021 for RHUI upcoming release feature-complete


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * moved out - Orphan cleanup running along-side other tasks (?)(medium)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7659

  * Need to investigate cert-issue 8000 


Pending Items:

   -

   Pulp 2 - potential items in discussion
   -

  Potential patch for sync perf
  -

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

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 92 Planning

[Robin Chan]

5-March-2021

New Sprint 92 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 91 Query


 New - 17

 Assigned - 15

 Post - 13

 Modified - 18

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE -

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE -


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
  -

 Pulpcore 3.9
 -

 Pulp-2to3-migration work for 4.0 GA - 10th of March 2021
 -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

 Pulpcore 3.10 (or newer)
 -

 FIPS support (needs to be in 3.11)
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  AH Operator 1.0 testing starts late April
  -

  Synclist planning
  -

  Roles support planning?


   -

   Pulp-container for AAP
   -

  2.4.0 release
  -

  2.5.0 removing RBAC tech-preview label  - mid April


   -

   RHUI: autopublish 3.12 + file & rpm (April)
   -

  May 2021 for RHUI next release feature-complete


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


Items put on hold:

  * moved out - Orphan cleanup running along-side other tasks (?)(medium)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7659

  * Finalizing Alternate Content Sources planning (bmbouter) (med)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7832

* design feedback needed

  * Need to investigate cert-issue 8000 



Pending Items:

None
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 91 Planning

[Robin Chan]

19-Feb-2021

New Sprint 91 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 90 Query


 New - 15

 Assigned - 13

 Post - 12

 Modified - 9

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 11

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG - 1

Closed - DUPLICATE - 1

Closed - WONTFIX - 1

Closed - COMPLETE -


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status
   -

   Everybody gets to pick one day per sprint as their “no meetings today”
   day - put one of those on your calendars


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
  -

 Pulpcore 3.9
 -

 Pulp-2to3-migration work for 4.0 GA - 10th of March 2021
 -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

 Pulpcore 3.10 (or newer)
 -

 FIPS support (needs to be in 3.11)
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  0.7.1 TBD
  -

  AH Operator 1.0 testing starts late April


   -

   Pulp-container for AAP
   -

  2.4.0 release removing RBAC tech-preview label  - mid March


   -

   RHUI: object label feature & autopublish 3.11 + file & rpm
   -

  May 2021 for RHUI 4.0 feature-complete


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * moved out - Orphan cleanup running along-side other tasks (?)(medium)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7659

  * Finalizing Alternate Content Sources planning (bmbouter) (med)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7832

* design feedback needed

  * Need to investigate cert-issue 8000 


Pending Items:
none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp Installer(s) Team Meeting Minutes 2021-02-10

[Robin Chan]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:57 PM Mike DePaulo  wrote:

> ## February 10 Agenda
> * Status update on CI's FIPS / Vagrant / Qemu emulation.
> * It's merged at last!
>



> * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/8228
>

> * Mike to update issue to clarify that if the 1st request times out,
> all subsequent ones will too.If the 1st request succeeds, all later ones
> will be much faster.
> * Seems like the best approach to the problem.
> * We will advice plugin-template users to configure the FIPS tests as
> optional to merge. So they can merge before they finish running after 2.5+
> hours (inadvertently too, if they fail.)
> * https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3800#note-8
>
> --
>
> Mike DePaulo
>
> He / Him / His
>
> Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp
>
> Red Hat 
>
> IM: mikedep333
>
> GPG: 51745404
> 
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 90 Planning

[Robin Chan]

04-Feb-2021

New Sprint 90 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous sprint Sprint 89 Query


 New - 22

 Assigned - 14

 Post - 11

 Modified - 20

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 2

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE -

Action Items:

   -
   - rchan: send out planning minutes
   - Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues
   to new sprint

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Dalley check on metadata mirroring priority


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
  -

 Pulpcore 3.9
 -

 Pulp-2to3-migration work for 4.0 GA - early March 2021
 -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

 Pulpcore 3.10 (or newer)
 -

 FIPS support (needs to be in 3.11)
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  0.7.0 Feb 9 due date
  -

   RHUI: object label feature & autopublish 3.11 + file & rpm


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * moved out - Orphan cleanup running along-side other tasks (?)(medium)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7659

  * Finalizing Alternate Content Sources planning (bmbouter) (med)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7832

* design feedback needed

  * Need to investigate cert-issue 8000 


Pending Items:

RPM metadata mirroring - need to check on Katello bandwidth, will be a
priority soon
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 89 Planning Agenda

[Robin Chan]

22-Jan-2021

New Sprint 88 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous in between sprints Sprint 88 Query


 New - 23

 Assigned - 16

 Post - 14

 Modified - 24

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 4

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 1


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint (not needed)
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
  -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  Feature freeze end of January
  -

   RHUI: object label feature & autopublish 3.11 + file & rpm


Non-redmine tasks:

   -

   FOSDEM videos, Devconf workshop
   -

   Note sprint is 1 day shorter due to internal day of learning


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Items put on hold:

  * moved out - Orphan cleanup running along-side other tasks (?)(medium)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7659

  * Finalizing Alternate Content Sources planning (bmbouter) (med)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7832

* design feedback needed

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 88 Planning

[Robin Chan]

8-Jan-2021

New Sprint 88 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous in between sprints Sprint 88 Query


 New - 21

 Assigned - 18

 Post - 9

 Modified - 7

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE -

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE -


Action Items:

   -

   - rchan: send out planning minutes
   - Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues
   to new sprint (not needed)
   - Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   - Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  3.18 branching:  Nov 2nd, Targeting Pulp 3.7
  -

  4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
  -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  Feature freeze end of January
  -

   tagging feature 3.10 or 3.11 at latest



Non-redmine tasks:

   -

   working on talk recordings


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

  * moved out - Orphan cleanup running along-side other tasks (?)(medium)

* https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7659

Pending Items:
none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint non-sprint Planning Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

Lots of staff will be out due to the end of year holidays, so we did a
quick reduced planning check in. We'll use Sprint 88 as a placeholder and
for planning starting January 8th 2021.


18-Dec-2020

New Sprint 88 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 87 Query


 New - 15

 Assigned - 15

 Post - 9

 Modified - 15

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 4

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 3



Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  3.18 branching:  Nov 2nd, Targeting Pulp 3.7
  -

  4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
  -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  Feature freeze end of January
  -

   RHUI: tagging feature 3.10 or 3.11 at latest


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


Pending Items:

None
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Pulp Sprint 87 Planning

[Robin Chan]

Note: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans has sprint plans
through end of year and beginning of 2021.

4-Dec-2020

New Sprint 87 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 86 Query


 New - 15

 Assigned - 13

 Post - 12

 Modified - 15

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 5

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE -

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Everybody gets to pick one day per sprint as their “no meetings today”
   day - put one of those on your calendars
   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status (internal
   spreadsheet)


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Update 3 month planning current quarter line item status


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  3.18 branching:  Nov 2nd, Targeting Pulp 3.7
  -

  4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
  -

  4.1 (Sat 6.10) branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 (Sat 7.0) Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  Feature freeze end of January
  -

   RHUI: tagging feature 3.10 or 3.11 at latest



Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] OSTree Guesstimates of a Basic Implementation

[Robin Chan]

I chatted with Tanya about this today.
If we can get some engagement from coreos upstream users or katello to talk
through some more complicated use cases, this would help address some of
the concerns Tanya had. We would welcome this now (so that our estimates
can become more informed) and will pursue these avenues during scoping &
design once we have staffing and bandwidth to start on this. The estimates
meet my needs for planning and prioritization against other roadmap/backlog
items.
I'd also be interesting in knowing if there is a different iterative
approach we can take to try to provide some minimal functionality that
would allow folks to start using Pulp 3 to manage OSTree plugin and drive
requests for more concrete, complicated use cases.

-Robin

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 1:14 PM Tanya Tereshchenko 
wrote:

> Thanks for the write-up and the guesstimation!
>
> It would be really helpful for me personally to see stakeholder use cases
> or to understand if we are trying to cover similar use cases as we had in
> Pulp 2.
> I believe it's very important for this specific plugin to get the
> modelling right right from the start.
> The pulp 2 implementation had issues because we started with a basic
> implementation and modelling and then were adding more on top preserving
> backward compatibility, etc.
> Even if we implement just some MVP, I strongly encourage to look at all
> the complicated use cases, existing and potential ones, before starting the
> implementation.
> For that reason, I'd add at least 2 FTE weeks just for the proper design
> planning and discussions.
>
> An example of things to consider:
> > As a pulp_ostree user, I can define an OSTree Remote (no extra
> attributes planned)
> Will it work in a mirror mode always? Was the ostree-reset considered? aka
> commit order can change or part of the history can be rewritten, similar to
> git reset.
>
> Having said that, I understand that we don't have time to do proper
> estimation and look more into this right now. Your estimates look good to
> me, I'd just add more FTEs for planning.
>
> Tanya
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 10:27 PM Brian Bouterse 
> wrote:
>
>> I was asked to look to write down a guess of what it would take to
>> bootstrap a basic-functionality ostree plugin. I wrote my guesses here:
>> https://hackmd.io/KT6AZGMBScuP7z6m9316Tg Basically 7.5 FTE weeks is my
>> claim.
>>
>> Any feedback is appreciated, either here or on the document. Also it's
>> just an estimate; I think we need to be really thoughtful about when the
>> right time is to start this plugin. It's up to the developer community and
>> stakeholders to determine what (and when) we do next on this.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Brian
>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Pulp Sprint 86 Planning

[Robin Chan]

13-Nov-2020

New Sprint 86 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124:

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 85 Query


 New - 13

 Assigned - 13

 Post - 11

 Modified - 11

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 7

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 1


Action Items:

   -
   - rchan: send out planning minutes
   - Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues
   to new sprint

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   update 3 month planning current quarter line item status


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  3.18 branching:  Nov 2nd, Targeting Pulp 3.7
  -

  4.0 branching ~February 2021 (dry-run needed by end-of-Dec)
  -

  4.1 branching ~May 2021
  -

 Potentially last compatibility release with the migration plugin
 -

  4.2 branching ~August 2021
  -

  4.3 Branching ~Nov 2021
  -

   Ansible
   -

  0.5.2 bug fixes - this sprint



Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 85 Sprint Planning

[Robin Chan]

30-Oct-2020

New Sprint 85 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161:

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 84 Query


 New - 18

 Assigned - 12

 Post - 13

 Modified - 15

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 8

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 2

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Everybody gets to pick one day per sprint as their “no meetings today”
   day - put one of those on your calendars
   -

   rchan:Nov 11 for next 3 month planning


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Nov 11 for next 3 month planning - 18th also option if anyone feels like
   an extra week would help?


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  Migration plugin
  -

 3.17 - optionally using Pulp 3; RPM + migration (‘now’ish)
 -



https://community.theforeman.org/t/foreman-2-2-schedule-and-planning/18862
-

Pulp 3.6 - migrations are tech preview
-

 3.18 - mandatory use Pulp 3 (November-ish)
 -

   Pulp 2.21.4
    - GA
   scheduled ‘today’, release in progress
   -

   Ansible
   -

  0.5.0 testing support



Non-redmine tasks:

   -

   Devconf.cz planning & prep submission


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Meeting Minutes: Sprint 84 Planning

[Robin Chan]

15-Oct-2020

New Sprint 84 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124:

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 83 Query


 New - 13

 Assigned - 15

 Post - 17

 Modified - 21

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 6

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX - 1

Closed - COMPLETE -

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Everybody gets to pick one day per sprint as their “no meetings today”
   day - put one of those on your calendars


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   none


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  Migration plugin
  -

 3.17 - optionally using Pulp 3; RPM + migration (‘now’ish)
 -



https://community.theforeman.org/t/foreman-2-2-schedule-and-planning/18862
-

Pulp 3.6 - migrations are tech preview
-

 3.18 - mandatory use Pulp 3 (November-ish)
 -

   Pulp 2.21.4
    - GA
   scheduled 22-OCT
   -

   Ansible
   -

  0.5.0 delivery pending repo-level deprecation resolution and testing



Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] CLI team meeting notes

[Robin Chan]

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan

Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to
answer this email out of your office hours.
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM David Davis  wrote:

> ## Sept 23, 2020
>
> * [david] Finish CLI PoC demo and upload to asciinema
> * Send out email to pulp-list about PoC?
> * Include asciinema
> * How to install, use CLI
> * Ask for feedback
> * Contact mcorr first and see what she recommends
> * Should we meet regularly?
> * Meet again in two weeks
> * Hopefully have some user feedback
> * We need a decision about where to have the cli code
> * it's not urgent.
> * for now, keep using a single repo
>
I was hoping someone would chime in here on what would be the cli
experience of a plugin that isn't in the pulp org - say debian or chef?
What would be simplest? Or is there an option that would be hard to change
back the other way? This seems like a pretty important decision. I'd like
to see some use cases or requirements that might help determine a decision
or rule out any. And I'd like to hear from other stakeholders.


> * Supporting multiple versions of pulpcore and plugins
> * For now, use conditional statements when needed
> * Versioning of the CLI
> * Needs more thought
>
> David
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Meeting Minutes: Sprint 82 Planning

[Robin Chan]

18-Sept-2020

New Sprint 82 query: Sprint 82 Query


New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=161:

 New - 29

 Assigned - 20

 Post - 16

 Modified - 24

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 5

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 1

3 months planning:
https://pulpproject.org/2020/08/28/august-community-update/


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   none


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  Migration plugin
  -

 3.17 - optionally using Pulp 3; RPM + migration (‘now’ish)
 -



https://community.theforeman.org/t/foreman-2-2-schedule-and-planning/18862
-

Pulp 3.6 - migrations are tech preview
-

 3.18 - mandatory use Pulp 3 (November-ish)
 -

   Ansible
   -

  Need to provide FIPS compatibility in 3.7 by Sept 22
  -

  Need to provide SELinux on EL7 and EL8 by Sept 22
  -

  Lots of bugfixes needed by Sept 30
  -

  Moving “mutable” data types off of content units by Sept 30
  -

 Still gathering stories and plans



Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp Installers Team Meeting Minutes 2020-09-09

[Robin Chan]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 1:19 PM Mike DePaulo  wrote:

> September 9th Agenda
>
>- [mikedep333] I want to say that the rest of the subteam was right
>about something from ~3 months ago. It was best not to create a branch
>supporting CI for pulp_installer. The effort would not have paid off.
>
> [rchan] Really love seeing this type of reflection on decisions. It's so
hard to decide if something is worth doing, especially in a tool like this.


>- We cannot run CentOS 8 molecule containers on our Fedora 32 systems
>right now. service/systemd module fails:
>   - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853407
>   - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853736#c8
>   - switching to systemd module does not help
>   - Can we ask RHEL8 for a fix?
>   - agreed: Just run molecule on a VM
>- CI is red on source-upgrade: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7479
>   - try pipdeptree
>   - try
>   
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp-oci-images/commit/755fa0f816bfac40fbf97f2dc2ca8fa5d6a6c873#diff-ef37552d3bc0dec828902c8331d481c7R10
>- What is needed from the installer to support smooth roll out of
>https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/799 ?
>   - Created installer subtask.
>- how docker changes can affect us? (Free plan – anonymous users: 100
>pulls per 6 hours ) -
>
> https://www.docker.com/blog/scaling-docker-to-serve-millions-more-developers-network-egress/
>   - agreed: This will probably break many projects, so they might
>   revert. Travis/GHA may also have a cache. So let’s address this later. 
> We
>   can consider Quay if it is more reliable then.
>- How Mike responded to the user email about RPMs install
>   - Team thinks it was good to spend time investigating, for the
>   user’s sake, for the sake of other users, and to look into the 
> underlying
>   issues (we want to find out about them early in CI, not when users 
> report.)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mike DePaulo
>
> He / Him / His
>
> Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp
>
> Red Hat 
>
> IM: mikedep333
>
> GPG: 51745404
> 
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Meeting Minutes Sprint 80 Planning

[Robin Chan]

20-Aug-2020

Note: Sprint 80 is the current Sprint.

Sprint 81 is the next sprint and holder of docs items that we will not work
on this sprint.

New Sprint 80 query: Sprint 80 Query


New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150:

 New - 27

 Assigned - 15

 Post - 17

 Modified - 12

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 28

Closed - WORKSFORME - 0

Closed - NOTABUG - 1

Closed - DUPLICATE - 1

Closed - WONTFIX - 0

Closed - COMPLETE - 0


Action Items:

   -

   Rchan: moved docs items to Sprint 81 (PulpCon) - only 3
   w/Tags==Documentation
   -

  6828
  -

  6255 & 5927 were in POST but no recent changes.
  -

   Daviddavis: CI/CD - look at issues on sprint
   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   MiniTeams: Remove items not doing in next 2 weeks
   -

  Mass close discussion on pulp-dev list - grooming mtg scheduled
  -

   Other Plugins: RBAC plan including testing
   -

  File (3 month plan), Pulp Ansible (3month plan), Python (not in next
  3 months)


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  Migration plugin
  -

 3.16 - RPM migration not included
 -

Need 0.2.z
-

 3.17 - optionally using Pulp 3; RPM + migration
 -

 3.18 - mandatory
 -

   Migration Plugin  3.6 compatibility for Katello 3.17
   -

   3 month Planning - Roadmaps for miniteams


Non-redmine tasks:

   -

   PulpCon prep (content and planning)
   -

   DevConf.us - record presentation and submit (david and mikedep333)


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26 - none

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 79 Planning Minutes

[Robin Chan]

7-Aug-2020

New Sprint 79 query: Sprint 79 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150>

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151
<https://pulp.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151>

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124:

 New - 38

 Assigned - 16

 Post - 19

 Modified - 14

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 0

Closed - WORKSFORME - 0

Closed - NOTABUG - 0

Closed - DUPLICATE - 0

Closed - WONTFIX - 0

Closed - COMPLETE - 0


Action Items:

   -

   MiniTeams: Remove items not doing in next 2 weeks
   -

  Mass close discussion on pulp-dev list
  -

   Other Plugins: RBAC plan including testing
   -

  File, Pulp Ansible, Python
  -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   N/A


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   Katello
   
<https://meet.google.com/linkredirect?authuser=0=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.theforeman.org%2Ft%2Fnew-katello-release-schedule-pulp-3-migration-update%2F19884>:
   Keeping short term deadlines and started discussing
   -

  Import/Export
  -

  Migration plugin
  -

 3.16 - RPM migration not included
 -

 3.17 - optionally
 -

 3.18 - mandatory
 -

   Planning - Roadmaps for miniteams


Non-redmine tasks:

   -

   3.6 releases
   -

   DevConf.us talk recording (8/24)
   -

   Process: Miniteam prioritization and sprint rethink


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

none

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] saftladen pulp's take on asciinema?

[Robin Chan]

I looked it up and according to the internets saftladen means juice store?
Could be a nice easter egg for the readme. :-)
+1 to Ina's suggestions those are great ideas.

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan

Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to
answer this email out of your office hours.
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 6:22 AM Ina Panova  wrote:

> This is great, +1 to the automation business.
> Even though shell scripts are quite self explanatory, could you write some
> Readme?
> We could eventually add this to our Wiki
> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Demo_Presenter_Notes#Recording-a-Video
>
>
> 
> 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 Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 5:38 PM Matthias Dellweg 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi list,
>> as much as animations help our documentation to be appealing, as
>> little appealing it sounded to me to record a demo over and over until
>> i liked it. But what can i say: We are in the automation business. So
>> this adventure ended in a set of tools to generate an asciinema
>> demonstration from a rather simple shellscript, wrapped in a Makefile
>> to be able to adjust and rerecord it over and over. Let's hope i can
>> encourage you all to add similar demos to that repository:
>>
>> https://github.com/mdellweg/saftladen
>>
>> Cheers, Matthias
>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Meeting Minutes: Sprint 78 Planning

[Robin Chan]

24-July-2020

New Sprint 78 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 77 Query
:

 New - 33

 Assigned - 12

 Post - 20

 Modified - 17

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 2

Closed - WORKSFORME - 1

Closed - NOTABUG - 1

Closed - DUPLICATE - 0

Closed - WONTFIX - 0

Closed - COMPLETE - 0

3 months planning: https://hackmd.io/bEXtPmroSMSHFyGRNO6QYg?both

Action Items:

   -

   MiniTeams: Remove items not doing in next 2 weeks
   -

  David to look at mass close discussion
  -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Rchan: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   N/A


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Draft Community Demo - Your Opinion Please

[Robin Chan]

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan

Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to
answer this email out of your office hours.
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:32 PM Melanie Corr  wrote:

>
>
> Ar Déar 23 Iúil 2020 ag 17:35, scríobh David Davis  >:
>
>> Thanks for working on this. Responses inline below.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:55 AM Melanie Corr  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I need your help in shaping the survey[0].
>>>
>>> I copied over some questions from last year's survey and added what I
>>> thought might be interesting. Last year's survey contains a lot of
>>> "planning" questions for future upgrades to Pulp 3. Many things have
>>> changed since then, and I think you know best where we need to focus.
>>>
>>> I added conditions to the survey to try and separate the following:
>>>
>>> * Questions for Pulp 2 Users
>>> * Questions for Pulp 3 Users
>>> * Questions for people who are in-between their migration. This last
>>> category of user may exist only in my head. Let me know :)
>>>
>>
>>> Questions for you:
>>>
>>> Do you think streaming the survey into separate user groups like this is
>>> a good idea?
>>>
>>
>> Is it possible though to compare the results across surveys (like what OS
>> people are using)?
>>
> It's the same survey, with sections that redirect for Pulp 2 users or Pulp
> 3 users.
> I had to think about this. The answer was yes but with added work.
> To avoid extra processing of answers, I added the generic questions (OS,
> size, etc) to one section while keeping conditional Pulp 2 and Pulp 3
> sections.
> If someone in the Pulp 2 section answers that they have installed Pulp 3,
> they also get redirected to the Pulp 3 section afterward so they can give
> their opinion on that :)
> Am happy to apply any feedback.
>

Gotcha. Ok, that could be nice for the user - skip questions that aren't
relevant to them.


>
>

>>> [0]
>>> https://forms.gle/aynaM4d4wX5Aterz5
>>>
>>
> This link is live. Take a look :)
>
> I also applied Matthias's feedback and added timeline options for when
> users plan to upgrade to Pulp 2.
> There's a duplication of a question "Where are you located" in the first
> and last section. I deleted it but it is still there. If it doesn't go
> away, I'll create a new survey when we are happy with the questions.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Melanie Corr, RHCE
>>>
>>> Community Manager
>>>
>>> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Remote, Ireland
>>>
>>> mc...@redhat.com
>>> M: +353857774436 IM: mcorr
>>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Melanie Corr, RHCE
>
> Community Manager
>
> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>
>
> Remote, Ireland
>
> mc...@redhat.com
> M: +353857774436 IM: mcorr
> <https://www.redhat.com>
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Draft Community Demo - Your Opinion Please

[Robin Chan]

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan

Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to
answer this email out of your office hours.
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:37 PM David Davis  wrote:

> Thanks for working on this. Responses inline below.
>
> David
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:55 AM Melanie Corr  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I need your help in shaping the survey[0].
>>
>> I copied over some questions from last year's survey and added what I
>> thought might be interesting. Last year's survey contains a lot of
>> "planning" questions for future upgrades to Pulp 3. Many things have
>> changed since then, and I think you know best where we need to focus.
>>
>> I added conditions to the survey to try and separate the following:
>>
>> * Questions for Pulp 2 Users
>> * Questions for Pulp 3 Users
>> * Questions for people who are in-between their migration. This last
>> category of user may exist only in my head. Let me know :)
>>
>
>> Questions for you:
>>
>> Do you think streaming the survey into separate user groups like this is
>> a good idea?
>>
>
> Is it possible though to compare the results across surveys (like what OS
> people are using)?
>
>
>>
>> With the Pulp 2 survey, do we want to collect, for example, what version
>> of MongoDB they're using? I'm assuming we ultimately want to guide users
>> away from Pulp 2, so most of what I added related to a future migration to
>> Pulp 3. I kept all the "what features would you like" type questions for
>> the Pulp 3 part of the survey and focused on what they need to get away
>> from Pulp 2. What do you think?
>>
>
> For Pulp 2, I would ditch most of the questions that aren't relevant to
> why they are still on Pulp 2 and what their upgrade/trial experience of
> Pulp 3 is like (if any).
>

Agreed. I think the EOL on Pulp 2 was a question just to try to get that
info out/awareness.


>
>
>>
>> For the Pulp 3 users, are there any areas I haven't covered where you
>> want to focus and learn their experiences?
>>
> What content types they are using. What features they want still. anything
we need to know to get users to use Pulp 3 (start or move to).


>
>>
>
>> I asked Greg Sutcliffe, the MBU's Data Analyst, a question related to
>> rewording I was doing on one question. One piece of advice he gave me was
>> to beware of asking about solutions to complex problems. For example, on
>> his advice, I changed "If there was a Pulp 3 web-based interface, would you
>> use it?" from the 2019 survey to "Do you need a Pulp 3 web UI for your
>> environment?" with the follow-up question to describe that workflow if they
>> answer yes. He said to focus the questions on their experiences and their
>> problems rather than having them propose hypothetical solutions.
>>
>
> +1, good idea.
>
agreed. no leading questions. I think before we asked a similar question
about the cli. "Would like a free cookie" vs. "what do you need right now"


>
>
>>
>> Feel free to reply here or enter "That is a terrible question, Melanie"
>> into the survey :)
>> Am happy to apply any feedback.
>>
>> [0]
>> https://forms.gle/aynaM4d4wX5Aterz5
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Melanie Corr, RHCE
>>
>> Community Manager
>>
>> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>
>>
>> Remote, Ireland
>>
>> mc...@redhat.com
>> M: +353857774436 IM: mcorr
>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Cherry pick processor

[Robin Chan]

I can't speak to the work delta between the existing processor and doing
them manually, but maybe we can initiate a conversation about this and
other challenges with cherry picking and building with the build team?

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan

Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to
answer this email out of your office hours.
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 2:48 PM Brian Bouterse  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:34 PM David Davis  wrote:
>
>> As creator of the cherry pick processor, I'd like to propose we ditch it.
>> It requires a lot of upkeep which doesn't really save us time over just
>> doing the cherry picks ourselves. Also, it often fails because it cannot
>> make intelligent decisions when there are merge conflicts.
>>
>> Instead what I'd propose is that we do cherry picks at release time. We
>> do z-releases infrequently and they are usually for a particular
>> stakeholder so we usually know which issues the stakeholder needs and can
>> cherry pick these changes ourselves before we do a release. We can also
>> continue using the "Needs Cherry Pick" labels to help us remember issues we
>> want to include in a z-release later on.
>>
>> Overall, I think disabling it is the best path forward but I'm also
>> interested in any feedback people may have to improve the cherry pick
>> processor.
>>
> I agree with you. Also if we do keep something like this we probably
> should use one that is already made, e.g. gerritt.
> https://www.gerritcodereview.com/ +1 to for now retiring it.
>
>
>> David
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Meeting Minutes: Sprint 77 Planning Meeting

[Robin Chan]

10-July-2020

New Sprint 77 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124>

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151
<https://pulp.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151>

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 76 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124>:

 New - 34

 Assigned - 11

 Post - 21

 Modified - 9

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 14

Closed - WORKSFORME 0-

Closed - NOTABUG - 0

Closed - DUPLICATE - 0

Closed - WONTFIX - 1

Closed - COMPLETE - 2

Action Items:

   -

   MiniTeams: Remove items not doing in next 2 weeks
   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Ggainey: Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   N/A


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

none


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan

Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to
answer this email out of your office hours.
<https://www.redhat.com>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 76 Planning Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

26-June-2020

New Sprint 76 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

 New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 75 Query
:

 New - 41

 Assigned - 11

 Post - 20

 Modified - 23

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 2

Closed - WORKSFORME - 0

Closed - NOTABUG - 0

Closed - DUPLICATE - 0

Closed - WONTFIX - 2

Closed - COMPLETE - 1

Action Items:

   -

   *MiniTeams: Remove items not doing in next 2 weeks*
   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   N/A


Stakeholder Delivery Dates:

   -

   By July 2 finish collaboration with @spredzy on pulp_installer
   contributions
   -

   This sprint - Fully plan out how to integrate pulp-operator with object
   storage and external DB
   -

   July 7 - pulpcore 3.5 release


   -

   Planning - Roadmaps for miniteams


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 75 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

11-June-2020

New Sprint 75 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151


Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 74 Query
:

 New - 41

 Assigned - 10

 Post - 20

 Modified - 16

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 3

Closed - WORKSFORME - 1

Closed - NOTABUG - 0

Closed - DUPLICATE - 0

Closed - WONTFIX - 1

Closed - COMPLETE - 1

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Miniteams please review new items & remove!
   -

   Sprint planning - review carried over items at beginning of meeting


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   DKliban: Plan meeting on upgrade testing


Dates & Content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

6953 - added

6959 - added

6938 - ungroom & need to revisit later, not added now

Pending Items:

none
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

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

[Robin Chan]

Sorry to bring back this thread, but I am thinking through some operational
aspects and want to make sure that my assumptions are correct and won't
impact things later on (have been accounted for in the design).

1. Any documentation requirements? Since there are both core and plugin
commands. A user on a pulp instance would be able to find out what commands
are available to them (in other words not needing to know which plugins are
installed). Perhaps being able to ship/make available this same information
as an actor knowing which plugins I am shipping (or should be there).

2. I can see an operator wanting to update or patch the cli
without changing other pulp software - so I'm assuming this is a separate
deliverable or would this be just part of core/plugins? If they are
separate I guess a new cli may be released when needed but if not pulp
software can continue to be updated. My brain can't put together the words
to describe that dependency relationship, but hopefully that workflow is
clear.

I'm coming from a mindset that a minimal set of commands might be available
initially and that it will be easy to add new ones as the need becomes
clear and patch a system without causing concern that other things are
changed.  However I do see this might be a short term problem to solve.


On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:21 PM Brian Bouterse  wrote:

> 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 Davis  wrote:
>
>> In some places, the API in Pulp 3 is very different from Pulp 2 but where
>> it's possible and makes sense, I think we will want to do this. Perhaps
>> this is a good argument for having plugin name after the "pulp" command (eg
>> "pulp rpm ...", "pulp file ...").
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:47 AM Konstantin M. Khankin <
>> khankin.konstan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it an option to keep the Pulp 2 CLI syntax as much as possible?
>>>
>>> чт, 7 мая 2020 г. в 15:28, Dennis Kliban :
>>>
 On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:13 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
 ttere...@redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to `pulp` command.
>
> I think for me as a user, the most logical would be to have a plugin
> name first and then follow the URL pattern.
> The majority of commands are plugin specific. If I work with multiple
> plugins, it also makes it easy for me as a user to just change the plugin
> name in front for the commands which have the same structure in different
> plugins.
> It also makes it visually clear that I work with a specific plugin, in
> comparison to when the plugin name is somewhere in the 3rd/4th place.
> It will also allow not to guess in commands like the `pulp
> repositories rpm rpm`  which one is the plugin name and which one is a 
> repo
> type.
>
> I agree that this would make much more clear to the user which 'rpm'
 is the plugin type and which 'rpm' is the resource type.


> +1 for
> pulp rpm content packages
> pulp rpm repositories rpm
> pulp rpm repositories mirror
> ...
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:58 PM Dennis Kliban 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 12:30 PM David Davis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Matthias and I met today to go over some plans for a prototype. I
>>> wrote some notes[0] down. As part of the prototype, we'd propose two
>>> deliverables (one this week and one next week):
>>>
>>> 1. A set of ~2-3 click commands that use the bindings to interact
>>> with Pulp
>>> 2. Some openapi-generator templates that will be able to generate
>>> such commands from the schema
>>>
>>> There is a question we had about how the commands for typed
>>> resources will be structured in the CLI. To illustrate with two 
>>> endpoints:
>>>
>>>
>> We should call the command 'pulp' instead of pulp-cli.
>>
>>
>>> # rpm.package content (/pulp/api/v3/content/rpm/packages/):
>>> - pulp-cli rpm content packages ...
>>> - pulp-cli content rpm packages ...
>>> - pulp-cli rpm packages content ...
>>> - ???
>>>
>>
>> I was thinking we should structure the commands similar to the URLs
>> in the REST API.
>>
>> pulp content rpm packages
>>
>>
>>>
>>> # file.file repositories (/pulp/api/v3/repositories/file/file/):
>>> - pulp-cli file repositories file ...
>>> - pulp-cli repositories file file ...
>>> - pulp-cli file file repositories ...
>>> - ???
>>>
>>> pulp repositories file
>>
>> Plugins that provide multiple types of the same resource would need
>> to be more descriptive. Though I can see a practical reason for requiring
>> all resources to be that descriptive.
>>

Re: [Pulp-dev] Delivery Test

[Robin Chan]

Friday we identified a problem with messages not being delivered and opened
a service ticket. Messages were delivered late on Friday and we will
continue to monitor to ensure the issue has been resolved.

Should you notice this happening again in the future, you can check the
list archives [1] and contact us on the free node #pulp-dev or #pulp
channel. Unfortunately, it is hard to notify receivers that they need to
use the archives as a work around, so thanks for your patience and
understanding.

-Robin

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/index.html

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:26 PM Grant Gainey  wrote:

> Delivery test for pulp-dev@
>
> G
> --
> Grant Gainey
> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 74 Planning Minutes

[Robin Chan]

29-May-2020

New Sprint 74 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151
<https://pulp.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151>

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 73 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150>:

 New - 23

 Assigned - 11

 Post - 14

 Modified - 11

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 17

Closed - WORKSFORME - 1

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - DUPLICATE -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE - 6


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   (pending item last sprint) Container - groom & add to sprint S3 support
   in container issue


Dates & content:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

All 4 were added.

Pending Items:

none

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Rchan move planning to June 11th
   -

   DKliban: Plan meeting on upgrade


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 73 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

13-May-2020

New Sprint 73 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150

New Agile board: https://pup.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151
<https://pulp.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151>

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 72 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124>:

 New - 22

 Assigned - 7

 Post - 16

 Modified - 24

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 2

Closed - WORKSFORME - 0

Closed - NOTABUG - 0

Closed - DUPLICATE - 0

Closed - WONTFIX - 0

Closed - COMPLETE - 1


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Mini teams can also remove items moving to next sprint (last sprint we
   will remind here)
   -

   Dennis/Grant - Intern work planning & decision
   -

  Agreements in place, we are ready to go
  -

   DKliban close 6590 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6590> - done
   -

   5932 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5932>: Dkliban will update & ensure we
   have a good plan before re-adding
   -

  Turn into task & wrote a new one - to be added to sprint 72 - not
  adding it to the sprint at this time
  -

  Added a different ask this sprint
  -

   Dkliban: add import/export story for container plugin → this sprint
   -

  Ipanova added the stories

Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

5932 - don’t have capacity this sprint, but keep as sprint candidate for
next sprint

6733 - Action to add when pending container S3 support added.

5927 - keep as sprint candidate for next sprint

Core - 6699 & 6624 - added to sprint

Pending Items:

   -

   Container - groom & add to sprint S3 support in container issue


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


   -

   Mini teams can also remove items moving to next sprint - add to agendas


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Fwd: Status of pulp-python

[Robin Chan]

Hello Christoph,

The Python plugin isn't abandoned, but we have not been able to maintain it
due to other higher priority issues for other plugins. Our best case
scenario would be to find a user or users who use the Python plugin and are
interested in helping maintain this plugin.  We would definitely be able to
support those efforts including PR reviews and help with coming up to speed
on how to contribute.

I'd suggest a first step of working with Daniel (Python plugin maintainer)
to come up with a gap analysis on what you would need from the Python
plugin for your use cases. We could commit to PR reviews on bug fixes but
no feature development in the near future (this next calendar quarter
already planned out commitments.) To be realistic, I would recommend
someone from your organization know how to send PR for any future
discovered critical bugs to make this a feasible option. I'm anticipating
together you may discover some additional efforts like CI/test fixes or
releasing a new version that may be needed as well since it's probably a
bit behind on that. Those aren't off the table but I'd support Daniel
spending some time to figure out where we are with this. Does that sound
like something you would be interested in?

-Robin

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:18 AM Christoph Höger <
christoph.hoe...@celeraone.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I am currently in the process of investigating the usage of pulp for our
> company's repository management and think I can fulfill all the
> requirements except for a pypi mirror. While this is exactly what
> pulp-python seems to provides it has a showstopper bug:
>
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5452
>
> which appears to be the same as:
>
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5387
>
> I assume that I could get one of our python guys working on the matter, if
> I can refer them to a) someone to talk to about the project and b) get some
> assurance that this plugin is not dead already.
>
> So do you know what the status of pulp-python is? Is it just not very high
> on the priorities or is it already more or less abandoned? I am asking
> this, because pulpcore and some other plugins seem to have a relatively
> fast pace. If pulp-python is abandoned we might just go on with deb/rpm
> support and use something else to mirror pypi.
>
> thank you very much,
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Höger
>
> Email: christoph.hoe...@celeraone.com 
> Web: www.celeraone.com
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 72 Planning Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

1-May-2020

New Sprint 72 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pulp.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 71 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150>:

 New - 19

 Assigned - 7

 Post - 14

 Modified - 14

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 2

Closed - WORKSFORME - 0

Closed - NOTABUG - 0

Closed - DUPLICATE - 0

Closed - WONTFIX - 1

Closed - COMPLETE - 1


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   5932 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5932>: Dkliban will update & ensure we
   have a good plan before re-adding
   -

  Turn into task & wrote a new one - to be added to sprint 72
  -

  Added a different ask this sprint
  -

   Dkliban: add import/export story for container plugin → this sprint
   -

   Mini teams can also remove items moving to next sprint


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint Goals/Focus:

   -

   2.21.2 - Release Shepherd = dalley
   -

   ttereshc to close pulp BZs (for real this time!)
   -

   Onboard mcorr
   -

   Submit DevConf.us talks - completed this sprint


Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

[ttereshc] maybe worth adding this doc one to the sprint
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6624 since it seems to be a popular question
from users.

   -

   Add Sprint Candidate flag, address next sprint since not confident we
   have capacity to address this sprint

6600 - add

   -

   Decision: not clearing Sprint Candidate this sprint. We have a few items
   we need to do soon but don’t have capacity this sprint, so keep these for
   Sprint 73 considerations.


Pending Items:

   -


Action Items:

   -

   - rchan: send out planning minutes
   - Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues
   to new sprint
   - Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Mini teams can also remove items moving to next sprint
   -

   David - npm backup task for intern
   -

   Dennis - Schedule intern work mtg
   -

   DKliban close 6590
   -

   5932 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5932>: Dkliban will update & ensure we
   have a good plan before re-adding
   -

  Turn into task & wrote a new one - to be added to sprint 72
  -

  Added a different ask this sprint
  -

   Dkliban: add import/export story for container plugin → this sprint



Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] RPM plugin meeting notes

[Robin Chan]

>
>
>-
>
>From now on, add functional tests at the same time as features
>-
>
>   At least a happy path
>
> +1 - Let's start building this into feature delivery estimates and
commitments to stakeholders

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:37 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko 
wrote:

> Pulp 3:
>
>-
>
>3.3.0 is released
>-
>
>From now on, add functional tests at the same time as features
>-
>
>   At least a happy path
>
> +1 - Let's start building this into feature delivery estimates and
commitments to stakeholders


>
>-
>
>List of RPM features to test and/or to ensure are present in the docs
>-
>
>   AI: Please review areas you are familiar with and which you think
>   deserve a happy-path test or a note in the docs
>   -
>
>Reminder: relative path problem still unsolved, another meeting on
>Monday to discuss
>-
>
>Features
>-
>
>   Mirrorlist support from @lmjachky
>   -
>
>  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6225
>  -
>
>  In progress https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1690
>  -
>
>   config.repo feature from @lieter
>   -
>
>  There is a problem with determining the name of the public key
>  file
>  -
>
> AI: dkliban will send a note to list about needing to
> strengthen the interface for signing services. Will for now 
> provide docs
> that recommend using a specific name for a public key.
>
>
> Pulp 2:
>
>-
>
>All 2.21.2 items are done.
>-
>
>   dalley is taking care of it instead of dkliban
>   -
>
>Need to reply to Katello
>-
>
>   CentOS 8 kickstarts  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6470
>   -
>
>   can't be fixed in pulp2, will be fixed in pulp 3, dkliban to reach
>   out to Katello
>
>
> Open PRs:
>
>-
>
>https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pulls
>
>
> Triage:
>
>-
>
>Un-triaged bugs
>https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp_rpm/issues?query_id=30
>
>
>
> Sprint planning prep:
>
>-
>
>planned to be worked on during sprint and estimated time for each
>-
>
>   ppicka - tests planning/implementation (full time)
>   -
>
>   dkliban - kickstarts issues (1 day)
>   -
>
>   dalley - pulp 2 release (1 day)
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Sprint 71 Planning

[Robin Chan]

17-April-2020

New Sprint 71 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150

New Agile board: https://pulp.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 70 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124>:

 New - 14

 Assigned - 5

 Post - 9

 Modified - 10

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 8

Closed - WORKSFORME - 1

Closed - NOTABUG - 1

Closed - DUPLICATE - 1

Closed - WONTFIX - 0

Closed - COMPLETE - 0


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   5932 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5932>: Dkliban will update & ensure we
   have a good plan before re-adding
   -

  Turn into task & wrote a new one - to be added to sprint.
  -

   ggainey/dkliban intern
   -

  Lots of thoughtful discussion going on in email thread
  -

  CLI design discussion gearing up (whether we use it for an intern
  project or not)
  -

   Potential work:
   -

  Potential work related to openshift installation procedure
  -

   Last sprint said we would work on this, but not on sprint:
   -

  RPM: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6387
  -

  Will be added to sprint when staffing in RPM mtg/team


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

   -

   Add import/export for container


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
   -

   Dkliban: add import/export story for container plugin
   -

   Mini teams can also remove items moving to next sprint


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 70 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

3-April-2020


Be aware: Pulpcore 3.3 release: April 8


New Sprint 70 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

New Agile board: https://pulp.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 69 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150>:

 New - 9

 Assigned - 7

 Post - 11

 Modified - 25

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 1

Closed - WORKSFORME - 0

Closed - NOTABUG - 1

Closed - WONTFIX - 0

Closed - COMPLETE - 0


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   5932: Dkliban will update & ensure we have a good plan before re-adding
   → keep this week


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Current sprint:

6399 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6399> - blocked at the moment; take off &
Pavel will bring back when not blocked

6205 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6205> - next up for dkliban after
kickstarts, keep on sprint


Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

6442 - handled by rpm team mtg

6409 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6409> - added to sprint

Pending Items:

   -

   6397 follow on - new setting to override size of headers - needed for
   katello to consume cert guards
   -

   Potential work related to openshift installation procedure


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint
   -

   5932 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5932>: Dkliban will update & ensure we
   have a good plan before re-adding
   -

   ggainey/dkliban to meet and talk about task(s) we can hand off to our
   intern; ggainey to set up mtg
   -

   Publish https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] [Meeting Minutes] Pulp Sprint 69 Planning

[Robin Chan]

20-March-2020

New Sprint 69 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150

New Agile board: https://pulp.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 68 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=142>:

 New - 12

 Assigned - 12

 Post - 13

 Modified - 20

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 1

Closed - WORKSFORME - 0

Closed - NOTABUG - 1

Closed - WONTFIX - 5

Closed - COMPLETE - 0


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   none


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint Goals/Focus:

   -

   Pulpcore 3.3 release: April 1


Current sprint:

6246: less problem with new dynaconf version - not moving forward

4458: dana will unassign, keep on sprint

5932: been on several sprints - remove for now, dkliban

6244: could be closed - test w/GA then close? 3.2.1 has new version of
dynaconf. Dkliban will close with note.

6217: plugin will remove duplicates, so may need to re-evaluate - brian
will comment & we will remove.

5927: email thread stalled, what are next steps: remove for now & will try
to get to important issue later or when it becomes an impact for
stakeholders


Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

6371: add to query

5828: blocked on 5927 - fao89 add blocking relationship

6294: wait

6281: move to backlog, off sprint candidate

6282: need automation hub & migration plugin

6335: add - small work & security concern

6353: Planning in case need pulpcore changes

Pending Items:

   -


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   5932: Dkliban will update & ensure we have a good plan before re-adding
   -

   Rchan update agile board for sprint & Move new, assigned, post issues to
   new sprint



Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 68 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

FYI - here is an alternative kanban chart view of the sprint with project
swimlanes:
https://pulp.plan.io/agile/board?query_id=151

6-March-2020

New Sprint 68 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=142

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 67 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=150>:

 New - 16

 Assigned - 9

 Post - 8

 Modified - 15

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 12

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE -

Closed - NOTABUG -


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   none


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Current sprint:

Anything not moving forward?

4524 - ggainey is talking to partha

6253 - S3 keep on sprint for lmjachky? Not specific to stakeholder

6104 - performance tests - REMOVE (add CI/CD tag)

5828 - REMOVE

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

6294 - no capacity, next sprint - target prior to 3.3 (keep sprint
candidate flag)

6281 - Potential issue for lmjachky

6282 - not added


Pending Items:

   -


QE Focus:

   -


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
   -

  Will not do this for this sprint
  - rchan: send out planning minutes



Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Changelog conventions

[Robin Chan]

Thanks for closing out this thread/topic, Lubos. That is a helpful practice.

Given Ina's input, I see that as a concern, because best practice for bugs
is to have a title or description of the behavior that is a problem and NOT
the solution so that they can easily be found by others experiencing the
same bug. Whereas with features, it is best to have a title or description
of new behavior being added. So I can see that this would make it hard to
standardize practices here.

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 6:04 AM Lubos Mjachky  wrote:

> No inputs have been received for a week. Therefore, the changelog
> conventions should remain the same. That is, basically, no rules, and no
> conventions at all. I will continue using past simple on my own.
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 5:31 PM Ina Panova  wrote:
>
>> Thank you for starting this thread.
>>
>> The format of the changelog is different because the usual practice is to
>> re-use the title of the issue/story/task/refactor.
>>
>> If we want to create some standards than maybe we should start with the
>> titles from redmine.
>>
>> 
>> 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 Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:55 PM Lubos Mjachky 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> I have recently noticed that our changelog often contains non-uniform
>>> messages informing about particular changes.
>>>
>>> For instance, take a look at the changelogs in pulp_container (
>>> https://pulp-container.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changes.html) or
>>> pulpcore (https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/master/nightly/changes.html):
>>> 1. As a user I can manage images in OCI format.
>>> 2. Let users fetch the list of all distributed repositories via the
>>> _catalog endpoint.
>>> 3. Adds ability to build OCI images from Containerfiles.
>>> 4. Added v2s2 to v2s1 converter.
>>> 5. Allow administrators to add a signing service.
>>> 6. Files stored on S3 and Azure now download with the correct filename.
>>>
>>> As you can see, we are using there random tenses and sentence
>>> structures. I am in favor of establishing one feasible convention for all
>>> changelog messages. We should strive to use only one tense, e.g. past
>>> simple. Then, the messages would rather look like this [0]:
>>> 1. Removed the filter for the field 'digest'.
>>> 2. Added support for mirror mode.
>>>
>>> Please feel free to support this idea or raise any concerns. If we reach
>>> a viable consensus I will create a PR which will add a note about
>>> acceptable changelog messages to the corresponding section here
>>> https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/master/nightly/contributing/git.html#changelog-update.
>>> Thank you in advance.
>>>
>>> [0] https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/#how
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Pulp Sprint 67 Planning Minutes

[Robin Chan]

21-Feb-2020

New Sprint 67 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=1

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 66 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=142>:

 New - 9

 Assigned - 9

 Post - 14

 Modified - 24

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 6

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - WONTFIX -

Closed - COMPLETE -

Closed - NOTABUG -


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   none


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint Goals/Focus:

   -

   Support of Automation Hub’s work to port to a Pulp plugin pretty much
   done


   -

   CI support for branches in ansible-pulp
   -

   If time, close Pulp 2 Bugzillas in our backlog.


Other things happening during the sprint (including outages)

   -

   2.21.1 Release activities


   -

   Brazilian holidays: 24-26
   -

   pulpcore==3.2 releasing, Feb 26th


Current sprint:

Anything not moving forward?

https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5859 - 3.2 target, still discussing - brian
will shepherd

5613 - also need some grooming/agreement

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26.


Pending Items:

   -

   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6205 - Will discuss more before adding



Action Items:

   -

   rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes

Sprint 67

Dates: Friday February 21, 2020 - Thursday March 5, 2020

Sprint Goals/Focus:

  - Pulp 2

  - Issues as reported/identified by Satellite

  - Pulp 3 Container

  - no plans this sprint, get PR merged to port tests to bindings

  - 5895 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5895>

  - Pulp 3 RPM

  - Feature work for 3.2 - Dana, Pavel

  - Copy/depsolving continues. - Daniel, maybe someone else will be
involved (ggainey?)

  - Importer/Exporter - David, Grant

  - Porting tests to use bindings - Pavel

  - Pulp 3 Ansible Plugin

  - Content syncing support (eg v3 support)

  - Pulp 3 Core

  - 3.2 Features and release

  - Certguard GA

  - bmbouter to implement candlepin certificate style

  - bmbouter to implement some backwards incompatible

  - Pulp 2-->Pulp 3 Migrations

  - Bug fixes and performance improvements on katello feedback - Ina
mostly, Tanya

  - RPM migration (errata, modularity) - Tanya

  - RPM migration (distribution tree) - likely Fabricio

  - potentially RC/GA  release (no RPM support)

  - Installer Work

  - Galaxy versioned releases of pulp_rpm_prerequisites

  - Begin installer work for pulp_galaxy to be installed on top of
pulp_ansible

  - CI/CD

  - CI testing of ansible-pulp / pulp_rpm_prerequisites branches

  - Planning to integrate SELinux/FIPS testing on Travis + KVM

  - S3 testing - Fabricio, David

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] Meeting Minutes: Sprint 66

[Robin Chan]

7-Feb-2020

New Sprint 66 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=142

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 65 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124>:

 New - 7

 Assigned - 10

 Post - 11

 Modified - 17

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 5

Closed - WORKSFORME - 2

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - WONTFIX -1

Closed - COMPLETE -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   none


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint Goals/Focus:

   -

   Support of Automation Hub’s work to port to a Pulp plugin pretty much
   done


   -

   3.2 Release - End of Feb 26th
   -

   CI support for branches in ansible-pulp
   -

   Wrapping up signing feature - pulpcore
   -

   2.21.1 dev-freeze 19-Feb
   -

  https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/2211_Release_Schedule


Other things happening during the sprint (including outages)

   -




Current sprint:

Anything not moving forward?

https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5859 - Needs some feedback blocking moving
forward

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

None.

The are the remaining 3.1 items to only be added to last sprint based on
brian/david availability for the sprint:

5613 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5613>

5286 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5286>

Pending Items:

   -


QE Focus:

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5945 - need final agreement w/misa. Note:
   lots of implementation already complete
   -

   Rchan check with dkliban on content signing in sprint


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 65 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

24-Jan-2020

New Sprint 65 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

Stats on how we did in previous 2 week  Sprint 64 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=142>:

 New - 9

 Assigned - 13

 Post - 7

 Modified - 15

Closed - NOTABUG - 1

Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 3

Closed - WONTFIX -1

Closed - COMPLETE -

Closed - NOTABUG -

Closed - WORKSFORME -

Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5449 - pulp 2 item, ask katello on priority
   -

  Ggainey actively working on this one, happens reproduceably but
  randomly
  -

   #5879 - not enough capacity now, 6.6.1 issue - need to get this
   connected to a bz?



Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint Goals/Focus:

   -

   Support of Automation Hub’s work to port to a Pulp plugin (over next ~1
   sprints) - Brian & David allocation


   -

   3.1 Release Jan 30
   -

  https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=145
  -

  3.2 - End of Feb
  -

   Conferences & conference prep
   -

   Z-stream updating and y-stream upgrades in ansible-pulp, including CI.
   <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5890>
   -

   Wrapping up signing feature - pulpcore
   -

   MIgration Plugin dev-freeze 3-Feb
   -

   2.21 dev-freeze 13-Feb (next sprint)


Other things happening during the sprint (including outages)

   -

   January 24-26 (Fri-Sun): DevConf


   -

   Conference prep:
   -

  Feb 1-2 (Sat + Sun) FOSDEM
  -

  Feb 3-5 (Mon - Wed) ConfigMgmtCamp



Current sprint:

Anything not moving forward? All items move forward.

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

The following 3.1 items were discussed but will only be added based on
brian/david availability for the sprint:

5613 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5613>

5974 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5974>

5286 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5286>

Pending Items:

   -

   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5945 - need final agreement w/misa. Note:
   lots of implementation already complete


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes



Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 64 minutes

[Robin Chan]

*10-Jan-2020Sprint 64 query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=142
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=142>Stats on how we did in previous 2
week  Sprint 63 Query <https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124>: New -
12 Assigned - 7 Post - 9 Modified - 19Closed - NOTABUG - 1Closed - COMPLETE
- 3Closed - CURRENTRELEASE - 22Closed - NOTABUG - 1Closed - WORKSFORME -
2Action Items from last Sprint Planning - N/A - rchan knows all were
resolvedDates:https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
<https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans>Sprint Goals/Focus: -
Support of Automation Hub’s work to port to a Pulp plugin (over next ~2
sprints/1 month) - Z-stream updating and y-stream upgrades in ansible-pulp,
including CI. <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5890>- 3.1. Are we still
planning for end of January?- Yes, targeting release of Jan 30th-
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=145
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=145>- 3.2 - End of Feb- DemosOther
things happening during the sprint (including outages) - January 24-26
(Fri-Sun): DevConf - Conference prep for FOSDEM & ConfigMgmtCurrent
sprint:Anything not moving forward?https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124> 1. #2220 - Move to modified
(Ina)2. https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5449 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5449>
- pulp 2 item, ask katello on priority3. #5642 - not enough capacity4.
#5879 - not enough capacity now, 6.6.1 issueSprint
candidates:https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26>Pending Items: - Features in
planning and anticipated to be added before the end of the sprint. - none*









*Action Items: - rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26> - 4891- 2946- 4967- 5066- 5122-
5212- 5096- 4664- 4666 - rchan: send out planning minutes - Move new,
assigned, post issues to new sprint- https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5449
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5449> - pulp 2 item, ask katello on priority-
#5879 - not enough capacity now, 6.6.1 issue - need to get this connected
to a bz?*


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

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

[Robin Chan]

Mike,
Do we need to do any updates to the demo script on our main landing page
ahead of devconf?
https://pulpproject.org/ <-- Still says "Pulp 3 RC" and I remember a
comment being made that we didn't get a chance to update the script before
the GA went out.

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Brian Bouterse  wrote:

>
>
> 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 worsens?
>>   -
>>
>>   Should do a corresponding PR for pulp-operator
>>   -
>>
>>NPM plugin
>>-
>>
>>   Some code for plugin_template was outdated #5923
>>   <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5923>
>>   -
>>
>>  Merged
>>  -
>>
>>   Run unit and functional tests for the generated plugin? #5925
>>   <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5925>
>>   -
>>
>>  PR open, dkliban to review
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5913 - Local fixtures
>>-
>>
>>   Got a container with the fixtures working
>>   -
>>
>>
>>  https://gist.github.com/daviddavis/562569487be1622ac8e05515e8fee385
>>  -
>>
>>  Had problems with docker and rich dep fixtures
>>  -
>>
>>  Added issue to sprint to complete work
>>  -
>>
>>S3 testing?
>>-
>>
>>   Run a Travis job to test out S3 support
>>
>> +1 to this
>
>>
>>-
>>
>>   Is there a Red Hat product/service we could use (eg ceph)?
>>
>> Yes ceph offers a S3 compatible API
> https://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/s3/
>
>>
>>-
>>
>>   More investigation needed
>>
>>
>> David
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 63 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

5-Dec-2019

Stats on how we did in previous 3 week sprint Sprint 62 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=142>:

Sprint 62

17 New

8 Assigned

13 Post

36 Modified

1 Closed - NOTABUG

2 Closed - COMPLETE

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Rchan: clear sprint candidates (note haven’t been doing this)


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Current sprint Sprint 62 Query <https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=142>

Anything not moving forward?

Pending Items:

   -

   Migration plugin issues found during early testing
   -

   CI improvement highest priority items


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
   - Will do this at end of week
   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Sync w/dennis on dates of docker
   -

   David will send email to pulp-dev on ideas


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 62 Planning Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

Most of our planning is being done in the Sprint Plans at a high level and
then through the individual sub teams, so these minutes don't contain much
useful information this time.


14-Nov-2019

Stats on how we did in previous 3 week  Sprint 61 Query
<https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124>:

Sprint 61

 New - 3

 Assigned - 6

 Post - 7

 Modified - 35

2 Closed - WONTFIX

1 Closed - COMPLETE

Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Rchan: clear sprint candidates (note haven’t been doing this)


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans  (see below)
<https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans>


Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

5673:

Current sprint Sprint 61 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124>

Anything not moving forward?

Pending Items:
N/A


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan: Remove all bluejeans
   -

   Dawalker & david: plan demos & docs



Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 61 Planning minutes

[Robin Chan]

Very late, but for the record.

As discussed over IRC, we had planned to end the sprint Nov 12th and do
sprint planning on the 13th, however teams will need to do some planning &
clean up, so we'll end on the 13th and planning is moved to Nov 14th.

25-Oct-2019

2-week sprints. Sprint 60 Query <https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=127>

Here is a quick stats on how we did in previous sprints


Sprint 60

3 New

10 Assigned

12 Post

45 Modified

1 Closed - CURRENTRELEASE

1 Closed - WONTFIX

1 Closed - WORKSFORME

2 Week Sprint 59

4 New

8 Assigned

14 Post

1 Closed - CURRENTRELEASE

1 Closed - NOTABUG

1 Closed - WONTFIX

39 Modified


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   None



Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Current sprint:

Anything not moving forward?

Sprint 61 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124>

4456 Docker testing with S3 - removed

3809 - Maybe not turned on by default but can be put in so packaging can
start. Still stay on sprint & some time with Mike & Brian emails & PR
w/policy.

Pending Items:
none

Action Items:

   -

   rchan: did clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan: move sprint planning to 14th Thursday



Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] 3.0 Blockers Moving Forward

[Robin Chan]

We have decided to extend Sprint 60 for 2 weeks (1 of which will is
reserved for annual meetup/planning so only 1 week of sprint work.)
Please respond to this email for any stories needing to be added to Sprint
60 (RPM and Docker plugin content can be added at those meetings.)

Next Sprint planning for Sprint 61 is scheduled for October 25th.

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:10 PM Brian Bouterse  wrote:

> Here's a list of the issues @daviddavis and I have groomed along with some
> input from others. If anything on here does not look right, please let us
> know! I put these onto the Sprint 60.
>
> Core should not add/remove content to a repository or create a
> repository_version without plugin input
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3541<--- waiting on final groom from
> ttereshc
>
> app_label is not set on the models in pulpcore-plugin
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5353
>
> PULP_SETTINGS environment variable does not work
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5560
>
> Relative paths in pulp are limited to 255 characters
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4544
>
> As an user, I have an exporter that I can ship it on a disc or on a "dumb"
> webserver
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5086
>
> Content with duplicate repo_keys can be added to a repo version
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5567
>
> Thanks!
> Brian
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 60 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

27-Sept-2019

Second 2-week sprints. Sprint 60 Query:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=127

Here is a quick stat on how we did in in a 2 week Sprint 59 (with several
staff at a conference) compared to the previous 3 week Sprint 58:

3 Week Sprint 58

4 Closed - CURRENTRELEASE

1 Closed - NOTABUG

1 Closed - WONTFIX

2 Closed - Complete

21 Modified

2 Week Sprint 59

4 New

8 Assigned

14 Post

1 Closed - CURRENTRELEASE

1 Closed - NOTABUG

1 Closed - WONTFIX

39 Modified


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   David work with Fabricio 5403: make epic & create stories for plugin &
   get groomed & on sprint
   -

   Bindings - Limiting fields feature. May need to back out depending on
   katello testing feedback - no action. Binding worked correctly, no changes
   needed.
   -

   REST API features
   -

   import/export - needs some planning/design - BB can advise
   -

  5086
  -

  5096 - not needed for GA



Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans  (see below)
<https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans>

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5449  - needs to be fixed before 6.7, but
   not this sprint (Target before end of year - comment added to this effect)


Current sprint:

Anything not moving forward? No, all uncompleted items will move to Sprint
60.

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

Pending Items:

   -

   Rename pulp_docker→ pulp_container
   -

   6 issues for Core - need to be groomed & added to sprint


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: did clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   Rchan: moved 4 New, 8 Assigned, 14 Post to Sprint 60
   -

   Rchan: Moved all items not moving forward to NEW - N/A
   -

   Sprint 61 planning on Oct 11 + schedule Sprint 62 on Friday of PulpCon


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 performance results

[Robin Chan]

It's been a long week of meetings. I just realized that the attachments
won't be available to all on this list and I should have re-directed this
to the internal list for now. On the other hand, the upside is that folks
know we are doing these types of tests and I'll check if we can put
together a blog post.

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 5:57 PM Imaanpreet Kaur  wrote:

> Hello Team,
>
> The perf & scale team has come up with performance results of pulp3 based
> upon some test cases. I would like to share with all of you.
>
> *How we tested* - Installed the pulp3 on one CentOS (7.5)  system and
> tested using these scripts
> <https://github.com/redhat-performance/pulpperf/tree/master/tests>.  Please
> refer to the following docs for results of the tested test cases.
>
> - Pulp3 performance results (monitoring data) - results
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i9YUNMjZH3I9vqfito4Hf7c-jJpptvsN4tDwlp4HvnU/edit#gid=1329496965>
> - For more details - refer to this doc
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tt3WiQUaugYFkvuxVHkCjRngcMxqeYdMEKer_eqWOxE/edit#heading=h.pccuaeykl3u2>
> .
>
> Thank you!
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Imaanpreet KAur
>
> Software engineer
>
> Red Hat  <https://www.redhat.com/>
>
> ik...@redhat.com M: +91 7263987549
> <https://red.ht/sig>
> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 58 Planning Minutes

[Robin Chan]

23-Aug-2019

No meeting was conducted this sprint due to planning conflicts. No items
were proposed to be added via the email thread. 68 items moved from Sprint
57 (45 New, 12 Assinged, 11 Post.)

Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   Issues in POST were not moved from Sprint 56 to Sprint 57. Moved
   22-Aug-2019.


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint Goals/Focus:

   -

   No additional internal items


Current sprint:

Anything not moving forward?

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124
No comment received.

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

Pending Items:

   -

   Features that are in planning and anticipated to be ready to add before
   end of sprint.
   -

  Migration plugin stories


Action Items:

   -

   Rchan: New, Assigned, Post moved to Sprint 58
   -

   rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

IRC: rchan
<https://www.redhat.com>



On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:08 AM Robin Chan  wrote:

> All,
>
>
> For Sprint Planning scheduled for tomorrow, I am going to cancel planning
> and I'll outline a plan on how we can proceed with planning not at a
> meeting. Please provide any suggestions of alternatives if you have
> concerns for this Sprint planning. We will resume normal planning next
> sprint.
>
>
> Action:
>
>
>- For new items, by please tag Sprint Candidates by 10am EST Friday
>23-Aug
>   - Tag as Sprint Candidates
>   - Reply to this email with a short justification - and this will
>   indicate others may reply with questions or concerns by start of 
> business
>   on Monday morning.
>
>
>- For any PTO outages or other internal activities please add them to
>[1].
>
>
>- For any pending feature we expect to be groomed & added to the
>sprint, please add them to [1] (this is an internal to Red Hat doc) or send
>them as a reply to this list if any discussion is warranted (these will go
>out in minutes.)
>- Feel free to update Sprint Plans for any items that are out of date
>(i.e. done) and ping me if you have any concerns about adding anything.
>
> Other Items:
>
>- I neglected to move 4 items in post to the current sprint, so they
>are moved now.
>- I'll move items over tomorrow AM.
>
> -Robin
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z-AzRC238jLAJMr2CBRe53C1Mj8TC-UW4LuJFGcpp4g/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> Robin Chan
>
> She/Her/Hers
>
> Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp
>
> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>
>
> IRC: rchan
> <https://www.redhat.com>
>
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 58 Planning

[Robin Chan]

All,


For Sprint Planning scheduled for tomorrow, I am going to cancel planning
and I'll outline a plan on how we can proceed with planning not at a
meeting. Please provide any suggestions of alternatives if you have
concerns for this Sprint planning. We will resume normal planning next
sprint.


Action:


   - For new items, by please tag Sprint Candidates by 10am EST Friday
   23-Aug
  - Tag as Sprint Candidates
  - Reply to this email with a short justification - and this will
  indicate others may reply with questions or concerns by start of business
  on Monday morning.

- For any PTO outages or other internal activities please add them to [1].


   - For any pending feature we expect to be groomed & added to the sprint,
   please add them to [1] (this is an internal to Red Hat doc) or send them as
   a reply to this list if any discussion is warranted (these will go out in
   minutes.)
   - Feel free to update Sprint Plans for any items that are out of date
   (i.e. done) and ping me if you have any concerns about adding anything.

Other Items:

   - I neglected to move 4 items in post to the current sprint, so they are
   moved now.
   - I'll move items over tomorrow AM.

-Robin

[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z-AzRC238jLAJMr2CBRe53C1Mj8TC-UW4LuJFGcpp4g/edit?usp=sharing


Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 57 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

02-Aug-2019


Action Items from last Sprint Planning

   -

   None


Dates:

https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Note: we have some impact this sprint due to DevConf.us prep & attendance
by team members.

Current sprint:

Anything not moving forward?

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124

985 - python plugin, so removed from sprint

Sprint candidates:

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26

5212 - added

Note that RHSCL support dates for postgres listed here:
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/rhscl

5184 - added

4651 - added as an AI to get groomed & added to sprint

4524 - already on sprint - kersom collaborate with whoever takes this. Most
likely a no fix, but needs to be investigated

Pending Items:

   -

   Migration planning - will be creating stories that will be added
   -

   Docker stories
   -

   RPM - few items once platform feedback


Action Items:

   -

   rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   -

   rchan: send out planning minutes
   -

   4651: groom & add to sprint - kersom, dkliban, mike


Note: Some internal only items have been removed.

Robin Chan

She/Her/Hers

Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp

Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>

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

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

[Robin Chan]

+1
In May, the Foreman community warned us against trying to support many
databases - saying the cost was too high.  Without any compelling reason to
abandon earlier efforts to stay compatible, no action was taken at that
time since the cost was nominal until now. With the new information, I
agree the list of reasons in this thread justify the decision to drop
MariaDB/MySQL.

Mixed plugin support is the #1 reason for me.

Robin Chan
Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp



On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:59 AM Mike DePaulo  wrote:

> +1 to drop
>
> My rationale:
> At a previous job, MariaDB support would have helped us; we could use our
> cluster.
> But a non-clustered postgresql server + Pulp having a lot more features
> (due to the limitations of MariaDB, and the saved developer time) would
> have been overall more valuable.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:06 AM Dana Walker  wrote:
>
>> +1 to drop MariaDB testing/support
>>
>> Dana Walker
>>
>> She / Her / Hers
>>
>> Software Engineer, Pulp Project
>>
>> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>
>>
>> dawal...@redhat.com
>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:41 AM Ina Panova  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to drop MariaDB support.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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 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 want. The community
>>>> survey has 16 respondents (IIRC) and 30% of them said they wanted to use
>>>> MariaDB. Also, anecdotally at conference booths, users want choice in their
>>>> database. To not give them that, we need good, technical reasons. I didn't
>>>> feel we had enough of them before, but now I feel we're at a point where we
>>>> aren't able to solve these issues; it's becoming a choice of giving users
>>>> features they want versus db portability.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the main reasons I think about (mostly what others have also
>>>> stated):
>>>>
>>>> * utf8 issues - 3-byte utf-8 issues   < is this fixable with just a
>>>> schema change?
>>>> * full text search - pulp_ansible recently implemented full text
>>>> search. To my knowledge it's not possible with MySQL. full text search is
>>>> amazing, and it's driving pulp_ansible to drop postgreSQL. I bet all
>>>> plugins will want this. With MariaDB, there is no search.
>>>> * mixed plugin support concerns - With some plugins dropping support
>>>> for MariaDB, the pulp community will fracture based on what DB you choose
>>>> to use because not all plugins can run in all places.
>>>> * specific field support - plugin writers have expressed the desire to
>>>> store json data when their plugins natively contain json data and perhaps
>>>> you want to filter on it for example. Having mariaDB support prevents us
>>>> from using the JSONField.
>>>> * performance concerns - The performance testing showed that Pulp does
>>>> run significantly slower
>>>>
>>>> If we drop MariaDB we should publish a blog post and drop it with RC4.
>>>> To remove MariaDB testing from Travis I propose we remove it from the
>>>> plugin_template and use the Travis CI tool from @dkliban to push that
>>>> config out to all repositories.
>>>>
>>>> I'll be offline this week. I wanted to get this reply out there in the
>>>> hope that you all can make and enact the final decision.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:02 PM Daniel Alley  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One more note:  Not all MySQL / MariaDB installations support
>>>>> transactions, which we use heavily (and rely on?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.2/topics/db/transactions/#transactions-in-mysql
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:55 PM David Davis 
>>>>

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 56 Planning Minutes

[Robin Chan]

Here are the minutes from today's meeting and a link to the new sprint:

*Sprint 56 query:*
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=127

*12-07**-2019*

*Action Items from last Sprint Planning*

   - dkliban: address 5004 - clarification and next steps


   - dkliban: create tasks for adding feature lists to file and docker
   plugins


*Dates/**Sprint Goals/Focus:*
https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

*Current sprint:*
Anything not moving forward?
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124
5074 - daviddavis close won't fix

*Sprint candidates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
5120 - added 3.0 milestone

*Pending Items:*

   - More migration work next tasks - need to write stories (transfer from
   etherpad)


*Action Items:*

   - rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   - rchan: send out planning minutes
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 55 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

Not a whole lot to add in addition to
*https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
 *

*21-Jun-2019*

*Action Items:*

   - rchan: new, assigned, post - moved during sprint planning


   - rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   - rchan: send out planning minutes


   - dkliban: address 5004 - clarification and


   - AI: discussion on Pulp 3 story flow/triage - grant just sent out note


*Action Items from last Sprint Planning*

   - dkliban: create tasks for adding feature lists to file and docker
   plugins


   - dkliban: send out planning minutes


   - kersom: will organize meeting to imrpove testing process for pulp 2
   [done]


*Dates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

*Current sprint:*
Anything not moving forward?
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=1
27

These issues will not go to Sprint 55 - comments made on issues.
4558 - needs some grooming
4562 - only for devs, can be done later, not stakeholder urgent/immediate
need
4028 - raga worked on this,  not groomed

https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
4722 - we will address this later, not added
5004 - added
4917 - not a katello P1, not  added now
5003 - small task to get started - yes added.

*Pending Items:*
Features that are in planning and anticipated to be ready to add before end
of sprint.

   - 3802: id as katello concern - high risk bmbouter will help plan


   - 4413: blocked by ^ lets add together


   - 4681: bmbouter - need to get groomed/planned


   - new issue written from
   https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-May/msg00061.html


*QE Focus:*

   - 2.20 release


   - Pulp 3
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] black

[Robin Chan]

Mike, clarification question below...

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 11:45 AM Mike DePaulo  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:14 AM Brian Herring  wrote:
>
>> > Moreover, using black would effectively take style comments/noise out
>> of PR reviews and we could just focus on logic.
>>
>> QE looked into this for a while, and I think it is a WONDERFUL
>> addition... especially for the reasons stated above.
>>
>> Some tweaking would be needed, but it is one less item to worry about.
>>
>> +1
>>
> [...]
>
> +1 based on my experiences on the X2Go project.
> We don't want to turn off new contributors with style issues.
>
Meaning new contributors would be annoyed that PR reviews would be full of
stylistic comments and that would be a bad experience?
I read this as possibly meaning new contributors would be unhappy with the
black project style choices? Being unfamiliar with the X2Go project, I'd
like some clarification on your input to the discussion here. TIA.


>
> --
>
> Mike DePaulo
>
> He / Him / His
>
> Service Reliability Engineer, Pulp
>
> Red Hat 
>
> IM: mikedep333
>
> GPG: 51745404
> 
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 52 Planning Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

Sending these out late. Next planning meeting will be Friday.

*1**8**-Apr-2019*

*Action Items from last Sprint Planning*

   - dkliban: ticket to document requirements for ci -
   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4652


   - 4558: bmbouter to shepherd through grooming and ready for adding to
   sprint


*Dates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

*Current sprint:*
Anything not moving forward?
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124
4545 - pulp 3 only needs to run on rhel8/postgres10, need this for early
fips investigation but can use a newer version of postgres. will keep on
sprint & update title/postgres ver


*Sprint candidates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
4691, 4694, 4695 - generation & uploading to make available for katello &
other users
4714 - slightly backwards compatible - remove dead fields, have plugins add
them if used. add to early RC w/version bump
4715 - code refactor, moving functionality. no change in functionality.
careful of overlap with other issues - collaborate with assignee of #
4678 - backwards incompatible change - standard way to not have publisher,
blocker for python roadmap items
4416: - don't add now

*Pending Items:*

   - Docs issues


*QE Focus:*

   - openstack work - deprecating disk build image


   - pulp3 focus


*Action Items:*

   - rchan: new, assigned, post - move Monday morning


   - rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   - rchan: send out planning minutes


   - asmacdo & kersom: discuss docs & plugin workflows


   - miked - need to add f30 items to sprint
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

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

[Robin Chan]

Corey,
I agree that the term "near" to "maintentance mode" will probably not be
within the "near" expectation for most folks.
We agreed to exclude redmine issue with external trackers associated to it
for Satellite and do a evaluation of those on a 1x1 basis.
However I don't think that anything in the foreseeable future changing our
resource dedication to Pulp 3. Any changes in Pulp 2 are probably yet to be
requested now (issue not written yet) or in those items we will review on a
1x1 basis.
Does that help?
Robin

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 2:53 PM Corey Welton  wrote:

> Late to the party here, but is it prudent to close Pulp 2 issues given
> that Pulp 2 will be sticking around Satellite for quite some time?
>
> I have read the conversations in this thread about how to limit the scope
> of closure, but I still wonder how wise a notion this is. Is it premature
> to call Pulp 2 near EOL or "maintenance mode" when we've got downstream
> products reliant on it for a significant amount of time in the future?
>
> Not trying to open a can of worms, just wondering if we're going to need
> to have more specific focus on Pulp 2 than previously anticipated.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM Robin Chan  wrote:
>
>> Let me amend my comments to say, I was recommending the closures for Pulp
>> 2 issue not linked to an external tracker. Also, another suggestion is that
>> mini-team could take the action to close the Pulp 2 redmine issues as a way
>> to break up the work.
>>
>> For issues linked to an external bug tracker -David Davis on IRC
>> indicated yesterday that the number of issues linked to an external bug
>> tracker is manageable to go through. I'd want to make sure we aren't going
>> to cause any automation to change statuses on the external bug tracker that
>> aren't discussed ahead of time with stakeholders.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:55 AM David Davis  wrote:
>>
>>> At first I was thinking we could keep stories open and just close bugs
>>> and tasks. However, I skimmed through open Pulp 2 stories and it seems a
>>> lot (or most) aren't even applicable to Pulp 3.
>>>
>>> It's easy enough for a user to re-open (or open) an issue if they feel
>>> like it needs to be addressed in Pulp 2 or Pulp 3. So I agree with bulk
>>> closing.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:47 AM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Byan,
>>>>
>>>> What you are saying makes a lot of sense to me. The architectural
>>>> differences between Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 are so great that most bugs don't
>>>> translate well from one to the other. I would prefer if we just mass close
>>>> Pulp 2 issues.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:27 AM Bryan Kearney 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was involved in the Satellite 5 to Satellite 6 bug triage. We brought
>>>>> known issues foreward, and after a few months the language and usage
>>>>> was
>>>>> so different that we ended up buk closing.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I could see moving over feature requests if they may sense, but if
>>>>> the RFE is unique to pulp2 or if it is bug against pulp2 I would
>>>>> suggest
>>>>> you delete/abandon it.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- bk
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/4/19 8:52 AM, Kersom wrote:
>>>>> > I do like the idea to evaluate Pulp 2 issues and create tickets for
>>>>> Pulp
>>>>> > 3 - mainly to avoid some known problems.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Perhaps, we could create a new label on pulp.plan.io
>>>>> > <http://pulp.plan.io> to distinguish those ones when migrated to
>>>>> Pulp 3.
>>>>> > And file as a related issue to the previous Pulp 2 one.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Robin Chan >>>> > <mailto:rc...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > re: going through open tickets - you can use the BK suggested
>>>>> > algorithm and monthly query for from some criteria (say last
>>>>> > touched) and review & close with the same message. We a pick a
>>>>> > target by which we wish to close all of the older Pulp 2 issues
>>>>> that
>>>>> > won't be addressed and pick a criteria to chunk through them.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >

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

[Robin Chan]

Let me amend my comments to say, I was recommending the closures for Pulp 2
issue not linked to an external tracker. Also, another suggestion is that
mini-team could take the action to close the Pulp 2 redmine issues as a way
to break up the work.

For issues linked to an external bug tracker -David Davis on IRC indicated
yesterday that the number of issues linked to an external bug tracker is
manageable to go through. I'd want to make sure we aren't going to cause
any automation to change statuses on the external bug tracker that aren't
discussed ahead of time with stakeholders.

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:55 AM David Davis  wrote:

> At first I was thinking we could keep stories open and just close bugs and
> tasks. However, I skimmed through open Pulp 2 stories and it seems a lot
> (or most) aren't even applicable to Pulp 3.
>
> It's easy enough for a user to re-open (or open) an issue if they feel
> like it needs to be addressed in Pulp 2 or Pulp 3. So I agree with bulk
> closing.
>
> David
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:47 AM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>
>> Byan,
>>
>> What you are saying makes a lot of sense to me. The architectural
>> differences between Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 are so great that most bugs don't
>> translate well from one to the other. I would prefer if we just mass close
>> Pulp 2 issues.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:27 AM Bryan Kearney  wrote:
>>
>>> I was involved in the Satellite 5 to Satellite 6 bug triage. We brought
>>> known issues foreward, and after a few months the language and usage was
>>> so different that we ended up buk closing.
>>>
>>> So, I could see moving over feature requests if they may sense, but if
>>> the RFE is unique to pulp2 or if it is bug against pulp2 I would suggest
>>> you delete/abandon it.
>>>
>>> -- bk
>>>
>>> On 4/4/19 8:52 AM, Kersom wrote:
>>> > I do like the idea to evaluate Pulp 2 issues and create tickets for
>>> Pulp
>>> > 3 - mainly to avoid some known problems.
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps, we could create a new label on pulp.plan.io
>>> > <http://pulp.plan.io> to distinguish those ones when migrated to Pulp
>>> 3.
>>> > And file as a related issue to the previous Pulp 2 one.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Robin Chan >> > <mailto:rc...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > re: going through open tickets - you can use the BK suggested
>>> > algorithm and monthly query for from some criteria (say last
>>> > touched) and review & close with the same message. We a pick a
>>> > target by which we wish to close all of the older Pulp 2 issues
>>> that
>>> > won't be addressed and pick a criteria to chunk through them.
>>> >
>>> > I would pick a fixed amount of time (both deadline & communicating
>>> > to other active devs so we aren't doubling effort) to dedicate to
>>> > finding issues to keep & convert to Pulp 3 items and just cut it
>>> off
>>> > after that. That approach makes sense to me in that once you get
>>> > past a certain time (which I believe is pretty small,) you are
>>> > hitting diminishing returns. We could use that time to fix more
>>> > issues or just write a ticket again on Pulp 3.
>>> >
>>> > Care should be taken to ensure pulp-list & blog post to cover:
>>> > - why prior to the closing
>>> > - what a user should do if they would like to pursue a fix (i.e.
>>> > will we take a pr? can they open a pulp 3 issue?)
>>> >
>>> > -Robin
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:28 PM Brian Bouterse >> > <mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Austin Macdonald
>>> > mailto:aus...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think if we close a lot of them, closed issues will be
>>> > very difficult to find with ~4500 bugs (open and closed).
>>> > I've been spending some time combing the backlog recently,
>>> > and I'm compiling lists of bugs that I think can be closed.
>>> > What I am also finding are tickets that could reasonably be
>>> > updated for Pulp 3. IMO, these tickets are common enough
>>> > that it would be w

Re: [Pulp-dev] State of the docs & Docs drive kickoff

[Robin Chan]

Hi Austin,
Thank you for pulling this all together and sharing it out.

2 thoughts:
1. What is the difference btween ln 34 & 127 of the [0] etherpad? Looks
like a repeat to me.
2. I'd like to hear more about this idea of not being able to distinguish
if a feature is documented in pulpcore or a plugin. Who is the audience for
this document? If it is the user, I would dig a little deeper question as
assumption that a user should have to know where it's documented. I would
think if I really do need to know, then I'm looking for different, more
general, high level information about the feature. If I'm a user of a
specific plugin then I'm looking for how this feature works for a specific
plugin and so therefore we might be able to re-use details - but what if
this plugin decided not to use this feature or customized it somehow.
Granted I think we need to make this super easy to document if a plugin is
using a feature in a straightforward way but do we need to make it
customizable or have additional info specific to a plugin? In order to not
make suggest a large change, I'd say, why not allow users to find the
feature details within the plugin docs?

-Robin

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:32 PM Austin Macdonald  wrote:

> The Pulp community is beginning our drive to improve the user docs for
> Pulp 3.
>
> Docs work is tracked with the redmine tags [Pulp 3, Documentation] and can
> be viewed from the query: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=128
> .  (Note that the query is for
> "Documentation" OR "Pulp3", so shows more issues than we need to focus on
> here.)
>
> *Action Required:*
> Please have a look at the goals and the issues mentioned in "high priority
> work" section.
>
> If you have some extra time, please review some of the issues in the query
> or tag other issues you think should be included. There are a lot of
> issues, so it will take a focused effort from multiple people to tackle.
>
> *Work begun:*
> I've started by reading over our existing documentation for pulpcore. This
> etherpad was used for organizing and compiling issues. [0]
> https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/
>
> *Docs Push Goals*:
>
>- Address OSAS Feedback
>https://pulpproject.org/2018/09/17/pulp-community-health-audit/
>
>
>- Add quickstarts
>   - make pups visible on pulpproject.org
>   - community visible calendar
>- Collaborative effort coordinated via Redmine
>- File issues for documentation gaps
>- Close irrelevant/dupes/already-done issues
>- Burn down
>
>
> *High Priority Work:*
> From the review below, 2 important changes should be addressed early in
> the docs push. These issues would benefit from feedback, please review and
> comment!
>
>- Explicitly define which features will be documented by pulpcore, and
>which will be documented by each plugin
>   - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4626
>   - The division criteria (discussed on the issue) needs to be more
>   concrete
>   - Publish better REST API documentation for pulpcore
>   - Publish the live-api docs (many options):
>   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4636
>   - Document how to ^ for plugin writers:
>   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4637
>
>
> *State of the docs, and what can be improved:*
> The docs appear to be in pretty good shape, but have some work left to do.
>
> The content of the current docs is mostly strong and concise [biased by
> familiarity]. The organization is fine, though some clean-up would improve
> readability, and clarity of the left-bar main divisions. Isolated problems
> are mentioned in the read-through notes on the planning etherpad. [0]
>
> The division of the docs (between pulpcore and each plugin) requires prior
> knowledge and is not well communicated. Based on the consistency, the
> developers have a shared understanding of which features should be
> documented in pulpcore, and which topics are owned by the plugin. In my
> opinion, most of the documentation on pulpcore is in the right place. The
> Plugin docs are off to a good start by covering each major feature with
> quickstart-style guides. Pulcore and each plugin's docs need to include
> more specific information, which should be covered by the REST API docs.
>
> REST API documentation is published on pulpcore's read the docs, but it is
> missing too much information, rendering it practically useless.
> https://docs.pulpproject.org/en/3.0/nightly/integration-guide/rest-api/index.html#pulpcore-rest-api
> . Significantly better REST API docs can be viewed at the docs endpoint on
> a live-running pulp instance. The live REST API documentation partially
> fills the gap between the quickstart docs (major feature) and how that
> workflow can be altered (minor features). Unfortunately, these docs are not
> published, they are only available if the user takes the extra step of
> generating the documentation.
>
> *Plan:*
>
>1. Begin by improving the REST API docs-- their 

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

[Robin Chan]

re: going through open tickets - you can use the BK suggested algorithm and
monthly query for from some criteria (say last touched) and review & close
with the same message. We a pick a target by which we wish to close all of
the older Pulp 2 issues that won't be addressed and pick a criteria to
chunk through them.

I would pick a fixed amount of time (both deadline & communicating to other
active devs so we aren't doubling effort) to dedicate to finding issues to
keep & convert to Pulp 3 items and just cut it off after that. That
approach makes sense to me in that once you get past a certain time (which
I believe is pretty small,) you are hitting diminishing returns. We could
use that time to fix more issues or just write a ticket again on Pulp 3.

Care should be taken to ensure pulp-list & blog post to cover:
- why prior to the closing
- what a user should do if they would like to pursue a fix (i.e. will we
take a pr? can they open a pulp 3 issue?)

-Robin

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:28 PM Brian Bouterse  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Austin Macdonald  wrote:
>
>> I think if we close a lot of them, closed issues will be very difficult
>> to find with ~4500 bugs (open and closed). I've been spending some time
>> combing the backlog recently, and I'm compiling lists of bugs that I think
>> can be closed. What I am also finding are tickets that could reasonably be
>> updated for Pulp 3. IMO, these tickets are common enough that it would be
>> worth our time to consider them.
>>
>
> I think this list would be great. Can we start a shared list somewhere for
> backlog items we do want to keep?
>
>
>> Of course, going through the enormous backlog will be very time
>> consuming. If we agree that there is too much value to close the lot of
>> them, then AFAICT the only path forward is to coordinate the effort and
>> move through it over time.
>>
>
> This is my concern mainly. I don't know how to go through 1125 tickets.
> Also, I am also partly concerned with an outcome where the Pulp3 issues
> contain a historical record of pulp2 requests "ported" to pulp3. If the
> reporter or stakeholder isn't around to advocate for a fix or feature
> themselves, then I believe we can serve the current users best by focusing
> on those things that are actively being requested (newly file'd issues).
>
> Still, if you have a list of items and they make sense to port we should
> do so.
>
>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:22 PM Austin Macdonald 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think if we close a lot of them, closed issues will be very difficult
>>> to find with ~4500 bugs (open and closed). I've been spending some time
>>> combing the backlog recently, and I'm compiling lists of bugs that I think
>>> can be closed. What I am also finding are tickets that could reasonably be
>>> updated for Pulp 3. IMO, these tickets are common enough that it would be
>>> worth our time to consider them.
>>>
>>> Of course, going through the enormous backlog will be very time
>>> consuming. If we agree that there is too much value to close the lot of
>>> them, then AFAICT the only path forward is to coordinate the effort and
>>> move through it over time.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:06 PM Brian Bouterse 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 As Pulp2 approaches the maintenance mode we have a large number of
 Pulp2 bugs open. A query [0] shows 1125 open Pulp2 bugs alone as of just
 now. We will likely address a small set of these before Pulp2 reaches its
 final release. What can we do to bring transparency into what will versus
 won't be fixed for Pulp2?

 The most reasonable option I can think to propose is a mass-close of
 the Pulp2 bugs except for those that we are actively working or planning to
 start work soon on. Overall I believe Pulp2 is nearing a point that if we
 aren't actively working or planning something for it we won't want to leave
 it open on the "Pulp 2 backlog ". Bugs accidentally closed could be
 reopened without much trouble probably.

 What do you think about the of a close-all-but-active Pulp2 bugs idea?
 How would you coordinate such an effort?

 [0]: https://tinyurl.com/y289wx5p

 Thanks,
 Brian


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

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

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 50 Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

*28-Mar-2019*

*Action Items from last Sprint Planning*

   - none (but note Sprint Candidate wil be clear after today's. Finally!)

*Dates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

*Sprint Goals/Focus:*

   - Openstack migration - move pulpbot & unit test runners outage during
   migration


*Current sprint:*
Anything not moving forward?
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=112
No issues discussed, no items will be excluded

*Sprint candidates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
4365 - keep sprint candidate
4554 - do earlier, advertise on pulp list, 2.20.0
4572/4574 - we do this, but leave timing to plugins
3473 - not added now, not priority, austin will modify that this is
pulpcore, not plugin template
4416 - not high enough to add now, brian
4585 - (issue add during triage)
4558 - no notes take on this but wasn't added to sprint so Sprint candidate
tag removed

*Pending Items:*

   - Cert Guards (improve docs, initial release to PyPI, have tests run as
   part of core tests)


   - Maven Plugin single use case (dkliban & rchan discussed later, adding
   here for transparency)


*QE Focus:*

   - 2.19 Completion Apr 2


*Action Items:*

   - rchan: new, assigned, post - move Monday morning or start of sprint


   - rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   - rchan: send out planning minutes


   - Sprint plans:


   - CertGuard


   - Migrations


   - remove galaxy (until tests complete this week)


   - add sprint goals to wiki


   - rchan: do we have future roadmap for FIPs compliance? set up mtg


   - Engage Build team on Django delivery for FIPs planning/estimate


   - rchan - let build team know about divergence of source containers


   - dkliban: ticket to document requirements for ci


   - 4558: bmbouter to shepherd through grooming and ready for adding to
   sprint


   - rchan: follow up with dkliban - mavin plugin single use case added to
   sprint goals


Notes:
Previous Sprint Planning minutes & template can be found
http://pulp.etherpad.corp.redhat.com/SprintPlanning2018
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Licensing

[Robin Chan]

Given our conclusion that pulpcore and pulpcore-pluginare "GPL v2 or any
later version", I just found a README where we could clarify our licensing
(adding the "or later version") and wrote up this task:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4592

I also added a few ideas of places we can check, so I know it's a bit
broad. I'm cool if we need to break this up (or make it an issue vs. a
task) please provide some feedback/updates. I wanted to capture this and if
anyone else remembers a place where they were misled to the licensing of
Pulp please add it. I also didn't want us to do any license changes (even
if they are corrections) just through github PRs since I want to be
transparent that these are clarifications and not a slipping in of license
changes.


On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:35 PM Brian Bouterse  wrote:

> I've solicited feedback from various Pulp contributors and also from the
> other teams that had expressed concerns about Pulp's GPLv2+ licensing. The
> feedback I received is that the license, as-is, meets everyone's needs.
> Without a clear use-case motivating additional license change discussion,
> or an individual or group requesting a licensing change to be considered,
> the natural outcome is that Pulp's license will remain unadjusted.
>
> As always, if you have concerns (at any time) please raise them.
>
> Thank you to everyone who participated in the thoughtful discussions on
> how to best position Pulp to create the most value for its users.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:12 AM David Davis 
> wrote:
>
>> Having dealt with some other teams that want to integrate with Pulp, I
>> wonder if we shouldn’t move to a more permissive license for Pulp 3. Reason
>> being is that a more restrictive license such as GPL might turn people away
>> from Pulp—people that might want to write plugins, integrate Pulp into
>> their software, or use Pulp. I know it will be a pain to switch core to a
>> more permissive license but I wonder if it’s worth it given that we want to
>> encourage community development, usage, and integration of Pulp 3.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:44 PM Brian Bouterse 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> After looking into this some more I believe @Simon's observation that
>>> Pulp is operating under GPLv2+ is correct. I don't believe there is
>>> ambiguity. There was confusion though. Specifically we include the LICENSE
>>> file in Pulp's repo (which is GPLv2), but it's the COPYRIGHT file that
>>> actually names what licenses (GPLv2 or later, i.e. GPLv2+) Pulp is licensed
>>> as. The LICENSE file is included as a convenience, but that doesn't mean
>>> its the only license. I've updated the FAQ clarifying this and linking to
>>> the repos where you can see it:
>>> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ#What-license-does-pulpcore-and-pulpcore-plugin-use
>>>
>>> This means that Pulp plugins must be licensed as either GPLv2 or GPLv3.
>>> Please raise any concerns if this is unclear or incorrect. This has been
>>> clarified in the FAQ also.
>>>
>>> @oleksander here is what I think that means for Apachev2 combinations.
>>> Please tell me what you think. Have your pulp subclassed objects be GPLv3
>>> since that is an option, and then that code is safe to combine with other
>>> licensed code that is compatible with GPLv3. Apache v2 is compatible with
>>> GPLv3. Galaxy is the effective "combination" of these two compatible
>>> licenses into one larger software. Note that this is a combining of two
>>> distinct license types into one software, but the licenses stay distinct
>>> over time. The Apache 2.0 parts stay as Apache and the GPLv3 parts stay as
>>> GPLv3. I wrote up this case on the FAQ also:
>>> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ#Can-I-combine-GPLv2-or-GPLv3-licensed-code-with-Apache-20-licensed-code
>>> Feedback on the correctness or this information is welcome.
>>>
>>> Please send remaining or additional concerns. We want to make sure we
>>> are incorporating all the info and correct info as we look at this.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:56 AM Robin Chan  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> So I have an update.  It appears that our Pulp 3 source code [1], [2]
>>>> is unclear regarding being GPLv2 or GPLv2+. I have learned that Red Hat
>>>> normally uses "GPLv2-or-later" rather than "GPLv2 only" for projects it
>>>> launches/maintains and this was tru

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulp_file ownership

[Robin Chan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2.19.0 and 2.18.2 build heads up

[Robin Chan]

There have been some IRC and in person chats. To follow up, we understand
that katello will be able to work around this issue, so we do not think we
need a 2.18.2.

I'll work on staffing/resourcing to coordinate a 2.19.0 build as soon as
resources allow.

Thanks,
Robin

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 3:12 PM Robin Chan  wrote:

> To call it out, the concerns are:
> - A 2.18.2 build Z-release would be 3 weeks & if needed would be a higher
> urgent need & done first
>  - We've never done them at the same time, so that would push the
> 2.19.0 build back 3 weeks, which would blow a katello date out of the water
> - QE & build team staff & resources (virtual hw) for the standard build
> schedule done serially or in parallel
> - Some infrastructure migrations are in progress and need to be completed
> before any builds can start.
>
> So to state it plainly, if a 2.18.2 is needed, I think we will need to
> find a way to not do the normal process/schedule.
>
> Normally, we don't look at doing a .z stream and a .y release so close
> together, because users can take the .y or cherry pick fixes back if
> needed. However in this case, #4518 [1] does not exist in a 2.19.0 so we
> can't cherry pick a fix from that back to a 2.18.1 build for internal
> stakeholders.
>
> Robin
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:58 PM Matt Pusateri  wrote:
>
>> Robin,
>>
>> So I make sure I understand the concern.  If pulp 2.19 doesn't GA until
>> 4/2/19, the concern is that it hasn't baked in long enough for Dev to pull
>> it into Katello on 4/8/19?
>>
>> Matt P.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:19 PM Robin Chan  wrote:
>>
>>> This is an early heads up on potential Pulp 2 build needs. I don't want
>>> to alarm anyone - however I do want to bring to attention that we have some
>>> issues to investigate and we may need to be creative to meet everyone's
>>> needs for fixes as investigation gives us more information.
>>>
>>> Pulp 2.18.2 - #4518 [1]
>>> We may need to provide a fix for an internal stakeholders not able
>>> to take a 2.19.0 y-release at this time. For Pulp upstream users, the
>>> master branch and a 2.19.0 is working as expected.
>>>
>>> Pulp 2.19 - driver #3740 [2]
>>> Delivery 1 new feature for upstream Katello.
>>> Katello has dev freeze ~April 8
>>> As a starting point, I have put together a schedule that goes with
>>> our usual Tuesday dates.
>>>
>>>- Dev Freeze date - March 12
>>>- Beta Release - March 19
>>>- RC date - March 26
>>>- GA date - April 2
>>>
>>> There may be a need to take some discussion to an internal list to
>>> discuss some dates or staffing concerns, but I wanted to share some
>>> thoughts here and let everyone know we will be updating as we know more.
>>>
>>> ~Robin
>>>
>>> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4518
>>> [2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3740
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 50 Planning Minutes

[Robin Chan]

Some internal staffing/RH internal items have been removed.

*08-Mar-2019*

*Action Items from last Sprint Planning*

   - rchan did not clear sprint candidate - won't do that until mtg after
   reach RC


   - Add ansible galaxy stakeholder to template


   - Need help with Docs day planning (post Pulp 3 RC freeze & release)


   - move stakeholders below sprint candidate


   - austin - write up concerns on upload & will decide about


   - ehelms 4189 - ping build team


   - ehelms pinged us, mike will look into


*Dates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

*Sprint Goals/Focus:*

   - Summit Prep (add to sprint Plans)


   - get ansible plugin ready for demo + prep other demos


   - Any Katello integration blockers (move to Sprint Plans - external)


   - Anything that stops them or severely impacts integration needs to be
  addressed above Core RC.


*Current sprint:*
Anything not moving forward?
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=124
4428 - remove
3808 - keep, looks good as is & david will work with katello
3972 - keep, will put back to new, add docs tag

*Sprint candidates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
4189 - may add later.
4365 - not urgent. don't add now.
3473: need to add docs along with features - discuss during docs planning
4341 - docs tag added - discuss during docs planning
4494 - need RPM knowledge, QE has some knowledge to share on their solution
add to sprint
4416 - no add
4125 - (this is a typo, not sure which issue was talked about here.)
4478 - add to sprint
4507 - add to sprint
Agreed upon plugin minimum staffing - miniteams can add plugin work for
this staffing:
  Ansible - 1/2 FTE
  RPM/Docker/Python - 1 FTE each

*Pending Items:*

   - Features that are in planning and anticipated to be ready to add
   before end of sprint.


   - N/A other than stories discussed before


*QE Focus:*
Issues related to Pulp 2 release, and assure that set of features that part
of pulpcore RC release is tested.

Suggestions:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4149
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4478
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4521
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4509
All on triage list.

*Action Items:*

   - rchan: new, assigned, post - move Monday morning or start of sprint


   - rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   - rchan needs send out minutes


   - rchan: add ^ to template
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Pulp 2.19.0 and 2.18.2 build heads up

[Robin Chan]

This is an early heads up on potential Pulp 2 build needs. I don't want to
alarm anyone - however I do want to bring to attention that we have some
issues to investigate and we may need to be creative to meet everyone's
needs for fixes as investigation gives us more information.

Pulp 2.18.2 - #4518 [1]
We may need to provide a fix for an internal stakeholders not able to
take a 2.19.0 y-release at this time. For Pulp upstream users, the master
branch and a 2.19.0 is working as expected.

Pulp 2.19 - driver #3740 [2]
Delivery 1 new feature for upstream Katello.
Katello has dev freeze ~April 8
As a starting point, I have put together a schedule that goes with our
usual Tuesday dates.

   - Dev Freeze date - March 12
   - Beta Release - March 19
   - RC date - March 26
   - GA date - April 2

There may be a need to take some discussion to an internal list to discuss
some dates or staffing concerns, but I wanted to share some thoughts here
and let everyone know we will be updating as we know more.

~Robin

[1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4518
[2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3740
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

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

[Robin Chan]

To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting for
Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern to my
knowledge.

@bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david pointed
out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the least
invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us feedback that
the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I agree with his
observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future proofed solution. I
would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in the short term
because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived (ironically for
the same reasons you noted.)

@kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you suggest
any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
this.)

-Robin



On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring  wrote:

> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on Pulp3?
>
> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems strange
> to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and should be
> making minimal changes.
>
> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would have
> on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3, doesn't it
> make more sense to make those changes there when the product has yet to be
> launched?
>
> BRIAN HERRING
>
> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE
>
> Red Hat
>
> 
>
> 100 East Davie Street
>
> Raleigh, NC, 27601
>
> bherr...@redhat.comM: +19193238427 IM: bherring
> 
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom  wrote:
>
>> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause impacts
>> that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we will
>> spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less
>> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker  wrote:
>>
>>> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in
>>> addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the
>>> hyphen change.
>>>
>>> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.
>>>
>>> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with
>>> @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so
>>> I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
>>> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names in
>>> pulp2 ourselves).
>>>
>>> --Dana
>>>
>>> Dana Walker
>>>
>>> Associate Software Engineer
>>>
>>> Red Hat
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>>>
 I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to  a minimal
 version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3.

 We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp 2.

 On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd 
> resources
> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
> can't tell them apart).
>
> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
> situation.
>
>
> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>
> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>
> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>
>
> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>
> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
> onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>
> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
 ___
 Pulp-dev mailing list
 Pulp-dev@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

>>> 

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

[Robin Chan]

See comment below on option 2.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms  wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources
> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
> can't tell them apart).
>
> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
> situation.
>
>
> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>
> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>
> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>
>
> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>
> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>
> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users onto
> their setups or through RPM releases.
>
> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>
[rchan] My expectation is that we will levy this requirement on
upgrades/migrations anyway, so I don't think this con applies for this
suggestion.

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Unified interface for plugin actions

[Robin Chan]

Justin,
Would such a change make a significant difference in the effort,
complexity, or time to migrate existing (or support new) plugins in Katello?

Robin

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 2:00 PM Justin Sherrill  wrote:

> To me this makes a lot of sense, allows for plugin flexibility, and is
> more consistent across plugins.
>
> I feel like this will make differences between plugins more
> understandable by reading the api docs, rather than scanning the
> README's of the respective plugin and trying to work out what is different.
>
> Justin
>
> On 2/28/19 1:42 PM, Austin Macdonald wrote:
> > Now that we have a handful of plugins that have somewhat different
> > workflows, surprising user-facing differences in the interface for
> > plugin-related actions are becoming apparent.
> >
> > Example: Publish
> > File:
> > Create a publisher
> > v3/publishers/file/1/publish/ repository=$REPO
> > Ansible:
> > (no publisher)
> > v3/publications/ repository=$REPO
> >
> > The difference is not huge, having a different endpoint does defy
> > expectations of a user who is familiar with one plugin, who then moves
> > to another plugin.
> >
> > Plugins can also implement other endpoints, like RPM's one-shot
> > upload. The problem is that we have mixed idioms. Plugins are
> > encouraged to create task endpoints for objects (remote's sync,
> > publisher's publish), but they are also encouraged to create arbitrary
> > endpoints for any other actions. Users are not able to form reasonable
> > expectations for this part of the interface from plugin to plugin.
> >
> > Proposal:
> > We could move all "actions" into a single area, namespaced by plugin
> > (by convention). This would allow the plugins the freedom to do
> > whatever they need to do while keeping the interface consistent and
> > predictable for users of multiple plugins. These "actions" could be
> > synchronous or asynchronous. Importantly, this would also create a
> > logical "group" of endpoints a user could look for in the REST API docs.
> >
> > Examples:
> > v3/actions/file/publish/ publisher=$PUB repository=$REPO
> > v3/actions/ansible/publish/ repository=$REPO
> > v3/actions/rpm/upload/ file@./foo-4.1-1.noarch.rpm repository=$REPO
> >
> > Will this push back the RC?
> > No. The changes to the plugin API will be small, and the changes to
> > each plugin would be moving sync and publish endpoints, leaving the
> > logic almost identical. I anticipate the most time consuming aspect of
> > this will be adjusting the documentation of each plugin-- but since
> > they will follow similar patterns, this shouldn't be too much work
> either.
> >
> > To sum up:
> > We should move sync and publish endpoints to
> > /actions/// to be consistent with other
> > plugin-defined actions like one-shot upload. This will look very nice
> > in swagger docs, and should provide more consistent workflows for
> > users of multiple plugins.
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3.0 Core RC Plan

[Robin Chan]

After our last update on the Pulp 3.0 Core RC [2], we have been working on
the list of open items for the Pulp 3.0 Core RC [1] and are closing in on
completion.  We felt it would be helpful to share our best estimates on
dates and an updated plan.

*Feature Freeze Target: March 6*

   - All items found in this query [1] merged


   - Any RC Blocker work coming out of the Upload discussion [2]


   - Beta release available on PyPI


   - Branch closed for merging


*2 Week Feature Freeze*

   - Critical bug fixes
   - Work on plugins compatible Pulp 3.0 Core RC


*Core RC Target: March 20 (**Feature** freeze + 2 week)*

   - Pulp 3.0 Core RC release


   - Pulp file plugin release


Feature Freeze will happen when all content [1] has been delivered. If that
date ends up being before or after March 6, the Core RC Target will be 2
weeks from the Feature Freeze date.

We expect new plugin releases shortly after or up to a few the weeks after
the Pulp 3.0 Core RC release. Please continue to follow the mailing list
and blog for announcements of plugin releases that will work with the new
Pulp 3 RC release.

Please bring up any concerns you have regarding content you do not see in
[1] that you believe should be. For more background information, please
also see our previous post [3].

[1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=121
[2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00052.html
[3] https://pulpproject.org/2019/01/30/pulp-3-rc-information/
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Missing emails

[Robin Chan]

We are aware of an issue where several emails to pulp-dev have not been
delivered. A ticket has been created.

For visibility & your work around, here are the messages not delivered yet:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00050.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00056.html
>From same thread:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00061.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00062.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00063.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00064.html
   But I have recieved:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/2019-February/msg00065.html

If you have received these emails and can send email headers to me or
provide additional data, I will add this to the ticket. We have encountered
similar issues in the past and the messages have been delivered after delay
of hours (~1-2 days if I recall.)

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

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 for Fedora

[Robin Chan]

That sounds like the right next step. Thanks, Brian!

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:33 PM Brian Bouterse  wrote:

> To get us started, instead of starting with a generic packaging repo, can
> we get Pulp's spec files generated and submitted to Fedora first?
>
> I made this Pulp issue to help track along that work:
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4414
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 3:39 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:53 PM Patrick Creech 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 12:03 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Brian Bouterse  >
> > wrote:
> > > > > This identifies that packaging Pulp into Fedora is valuable. Thank
> > you for that. I've got a few questions to help us
> > > > > get there.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the recommendation for where to keep the spec files for
> > these items? Is it directly in the Fedora infra? The
> > > > > Pulp upstream repos aren't supposed to contain packaging bits
> > anymore is my understanding.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Spec files and other packaging specific data *must* reside in Fedora
> > > > Dist-Git:
> >
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_maintenance_and_canonicity
> > > >
> > > > Spec files in upstream repos is up to the upstream, but Fedora
> > > > infrastructure cannot access them and cannot rely on them.
> > >
> > > I'm not quite ready to wade into the broader conversation yet..
> > >
> > > But to clarify on this one point:
> > >
> > > Upstream can create a one size fits all spec file that conforms to
> > fedora's policies, and a copy of said spec file will
> > > need to be commited to fedora's dist git and the package in fedora will
> > be built from that dist git location.
> > >
> > > To ease maintenance in this case, this keeps upstream from having to
> > manage separate spec files in multiple locations.
> > > When an update in fedora is needed, the spec file can be copied mostly
> > as-is, iirc.
> > >
> > > There are other projects that do such, immediately my mind thinks of
> the
> > candlepin team's subman work.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The DNF stack, Spacewalk clients, and snapd package maintenance works
> > in a similar manner to what you described. But it shouldn't be a big deal
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Licensing

[Robin Chan]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for sharing your understanding. A few of us were firm in our
understanding that Pulp 3 was GPLv2, but your input has caused us to look
closer and realize there are some mentions of GPLv2 or later and GPLv2.
I've reached out to Red Hat legal department for assistance in clarifying
the current licensing.  I'll pass along what I learn.

At the very least it seems we need to be clearer and consistent in
communicating the current licensing.

I welcome any other input or concerns from stakeholders and community in
the meantime.

Thanks,
Robin

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:37 PM Simon Baatz  wrote:

> Hi Dana,
>
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 03:55:38PM -0500, Dana Walker wrote:
> >Thus far, Pulp 3 has been operating under the GPLv2 license.  Given
> the
> >way the GPL defines derivative works, this means that the plugins
> >should also be licensed as GPLv2.  Take a look at this FAQ to further
> >clarify the current state of things. [0]
>
> To be more precise, Pulp 3 is operating under GPLv2 or later license
> IIRC.  IANAL, but this should allow plugins to be licensed under
> GPLv3 as well.  Without the "or later" clause, GPLv3 and GPLv2 are
> incompatible, see [0].
>
> >What we’d like to hear is feedback from each of our stakeholders and
> >community members.  Do you have any concerns with this license, or are
> >you happy with leaving things as is?
>
> I am perfectly fine with it (personally, I like GPLv2 only better, but I
> licensed pulp_cookbook under GPLv2+ as well to keep things simple)
>
> [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] 25-Jan-2019 Sprint Planning Meeting Minutes

[Robin Chan]

Feedback welcome  (notably any missing or unnecessary items) on upcoming
Pulp 3 RC blocker query here:
*https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=121
*

*25-Jan**-201**9*

*Action Items from last Sprint Planning*

   - daviddavis: RPM team will plan some RPM distibution/kickstart trees
   last sprint


   - no action until after RC


   - austin: discuss compiled docs issues to with docs team


   - bmbouter - put together rc strategy etherpad to collaborate on
   communication about Pulp 3 RC


   - Need to determine next steps


*Dates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
  - removed kickstart tree planning (resumed post Pulp 3 RC)
  - Also removed depsolving work - it has been merged after manual testing

*Sprint Goals/Focus:*

   - EMEA conferences


   - Pulp 3 RC


*Other things happening during the sprint (including outages)*

   - EMEA Conferences: Devconf/FOSDEM/ConfigMgmtCamp (4 staff weeks)



*Current sprint:*
Anything not moving forward?
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=1
11

All items moving forward

*Sprint candidates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
4189 - build team staffing bound
4341 - Dalley will propose after all Pulp 3 RC blockers merged & in dev
freeze
Lazy sync docs?
Dana suggested a docs day after freeze. Will bring up at team mtg.
4178: jortel will bring up at next docker team mtg

Listed as RC blockers but not on sprint 47:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4294 (brian) - david will check
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4209 (austin) - rchan will check on Monday/Tues

*Pending Items:*

   - Features that are in planning and anticipated to be ready to add
   before end of sprint.


   - David writing up Galaxy related issue for plugin api unit tests -
   david will get Brian to groom & add to sprint


*QE Focus:*

*Action Items:*

   - rchan: new, assigned, post - move Monday morning or start of sprint


   - rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   - Module Depsolving groomed & on sprint? https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3740


   - manual testing completed


   - Smash tests need to be written & mtgs to discuss happen this week
   already


   - verification required field needs to be set


   - rchan added to Sprint 47 today
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] QE commit bit

[Robin Chan]

Great. I withdraw:
#3. Shall we also agree that those not in [1] - in other words, the
developers give up commit bit for #2. Can still contribute but don't need
to be involved in #1 agreements.

And to re-iterate and be very clear, Kersom's ", just to communicate QE in
case of test changes. We already have a system in place on git." looks like
getting an approved code review from someone in [1].

That works for me and I appreciate the clarifications.
Robin


On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:15 PM David Davis  wrote:

> I agree. I think devs can merge changes to pulp-smash tests in pulp repos
> but they should get it reviewed by QE before merging--which, as Kersom
> says, we've been doing.
>
> David
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:11 PM Kersom  wrote:
>
>> David, thanks for driving this.
>>
>> I agree with your suggestions Robin.
>>
>> All currently present on [1] should have commit bit for those repos.
>>
>> I think it is fine to the devs to have commit to the test repos, just to
>> communicate QE in case of test changes. We already have a system in place
>> on git.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/orgs/pulp/teams/qe
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:07 AM Robin Chan  wrote:
>>
>>> A few suggestions.
>>>
>>> #1. QE good with [1] - you all agree these are the folks with commit
>>> bit? In other words, you trust each other to do the merge with your own
>>> agreements of who has expertise and when things are ready - all the details?
>>> #2. I would suggest we are suggesting QE have commit bit access to the
>>> specific subdirectories;
>>>   a) pulp_file/pulp_file/tests/functional/ (in pulp/pulp_file repo)
>>>   b) pulp/pulp_core/tests/functional/ (in pulp/pulp repo)
>>> I know this is not enforceable via the GIT settings, but helpful to be
>>> explicit about as we include this in agreement.
>>> #3. Shall we also agree that those not in [1] - in other words, the
>>> developers give up commit bit for #2. Can still contribute but don't need
>>> to be involved in #1 agreements.
>>>
>>> Fully supportive of this effort. I was one of the folks who gave my word
>>> prior to PUP-6 and see this as making sure the folks have what they need to
>>> get stuff done and keeping decision making with the folks closest to the
>>> work (i.e. QE makes decisions about all things QE.)
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:37 AM David Davis 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When we moved the pulp-smash tests out of the pulp-smash repository, we
>>>> promised to give QE ownership of the smash tests within the Pulp
>>>> repositories on github. I know we have a process in place to give the
>>>> commit bit to contributors[0] but this promise predates PUP-6.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, I'd like to ask for feedback on giving the QE team in github[1]
>>>> the commit bit to the following repositories in order to merge changes to
>>>> smash tests:
>>>>
>>>> pulp/pulp
>>>> pulp/pulp_file
>>>>
>>>> I'd also like to ask plugin teams to consider giving QE commit access
>>>> to their repositories if they have pulp-smash tests that are maintained by
>>>> QE.
>>>>
>>>> Feedback would be appreciated. I'll like to set an deadline of January
>>>> 30th.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0006.md
>>>> [1] https://github.com/orgs/pulp/teams/qe
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] pulplift with source installs for developers

[Robin Chan]

No issues with transferring ownership as Eric says he's ready.
And target location sounds good.

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:06 AM Dana Walker  wrote:

> Big shout out to Eric for all the work on pulplift--thank you!
>
> Dana Walker
>
> Associate Software Engineer
>
> Red Hat
>
> 
> 
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:08 AM Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> Ready to transfer! Dennis I sent you a collaborator invite to make you an
>> admin to do the transfer.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:08 PM Dennis Kliban  wrote:
>>
>>> I just merged the changes to ansible-pulp3 and the Eric already merged
>>> the changes to pulplift.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:00 PM Brian Bouterse 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I switched to it today, and it's been working well for me. +1 to
 adopting it as the official dev environment since it consolidates the
 ansible playbooks into one asset so we can stop maintaining two.

 When is the right time to move pulplift from @ehelms to the Pulp
 organization on github?

>>>
>>> I'd like this to happen ASAP.
>>>
>>>
 When we do move it can we just land it where we land all the general
 repos which is the "Pulp Team" group on github?

>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
 On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:16 AM Dennis Kliban 
 wrote:

> Thanks for putting this together. After checking out your PRs I was
> able to provision a development environment. Everything worked as 
> expected.
> I'd like to see us switch to these developer environments next week.
>
> Has anyone else had a chance to try it out?
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 6:10 PM Dana Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> I have some initial PRs [0][1][2] up for using pulplift to create a
>> development environment for pulp3 as described in 4243. [3]  Please take 
>> a
>> look and provide feedback on any changes we might want to make.  Feel 
>> free
>> to discuss what we'd like to see here or comment directly on the PRs.
>>
>> Note, I haven't added the requirements for building the docs yet, so
>> that update will come tomorrow, but I wanted to get this out here and 
>> start
>> hearing from all of you.
>>
>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/ansible-pulp3/pull/61
>> [1] https://github.com/ehelms/pulplift/pull/3
>> [2] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3824
>> [3] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4234
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --Dana
>>
>> Dana Walker
>>
>> Associate Software Engineer
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 8:34 PM Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> The current setup would have each individual configure custom boxes
>>> to suit their needs. If there was a fairly common setup for location of
>>> source code and mount options we could update the source boxes or 
>>> create a
>>> set of boxes designed for mounting by default to make spinning up 
>>> easier.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:58 PM Dennis Kliban 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Thanks Brian! This looks like exactly what we need.

 On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:54 PM Brian Bouterse 
 wrote:

> pulplift itself relies heavily on "forklift" which itself has some
> good docs. Take a look at these docs and see if it generates new 
> questions.
>
> https://github.com/theforeman/forklift#using-sshfs-to-share-folders
> https://github.com/theforeman/forklift#adding-custom-boxes
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 4:49 PM Dennis Kliban 
> wrote:
>
>> We currently use Vagrant directly to create our development
>> environment[0]. I would like to be able to use pulplift to create a
>> development environment for Pulp 3. Our current Vagrantfile uses 
>> SSHFS to
>> mount source code on the host onto the vagrant box[1]. This allows
>> developers to make changes locally on their laptop and the same code 
>> to run
>> inside the vagrant box.
>>
>> pulplift already provides boxes named 'pulp3-source-*'. These
>> boxes use a playbook[2] from ansible-pulp3 repo to perform the
>> installation. By default, this playbook assumes that the vagrant box 
>> has
>> pulp source code at "/home/vagrant/devel/pulp". However, without
>> the synced folders, the  source code is not there and the install 
>> fails.
>>
>> I would like to extend pulplift to use synced folders for the
>> source install boxes. However, I am not sure where to add such 
>> directives
>> for vagrant.
>>
>> Eric, can you point me in the right direction?
>>
>>
>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/devel/blob/master/Vagrantfile.example
>> 

Re: [Pulp-dev] QE commit bit

[Robin Chan]

A few suggestions.

#1. QE good with [1] - you all agree these are the folks with commit bit?
In other words, you trust each other to do the merge with your own
agreements of who has expertise and when things are ready - all the details?
#2. I would suggest we are suggesting QE have commit bit access to the
specific subdirectories;
  a) pulp_file/pulp_file/tests/functional/ (in pulp/pulp_file repo)
  b) pulp/pulp_core/tests/functional/ (in pulp/pulp repo)
I know this is not enforceable via the GIT settings, but helpful to be
explicit about as we include this in agreement.
#3. Shall we also agree that those not in [1] - in other words, the
developers give up commit bit for #2. Can still contribute but don't need
to be involved in #1 agreements.

Fully supportive of this effort. I was one of the folks who gave my word
prior to PUP-6 and see this as making sure the folks have what they need to
get stuff done and keeping decision making with the folks closest to the
work (i.e. QE makes decisions about all things QE.)

Thanks,
Robin

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:37 AM David Davis  wrote:

> When we moved the pulp-smash tests out of the pulp-smash repository, we
> promised to give QE ownership of the smash tests within the Pulp
> repositories on github. I know we have a process in place to give the
> commit bit to contributors[0] but this promise predates PUP-6.
>
> Thus, I'd like to ask for feedback on giving the QE team in github[1] the
> commit bit to the following repositories in order to merge changes to smash
> tests:
>
> pulp/pulp
> pulp/pulp_file
>
> I'd also like to ask plugin teams to consider giving QE commit access to
> their repositories if they have pulp-smash tests that are maintained by QE.
>
> Feedback would be appreciated. I'll like to set an deadline of January
> 30th.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0006.md
> [1] https://github.com/orgs/pulp/teams/qe
>
> David
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Sprint 47 Planning Minutes

[Robin Chan]

Sprint planning was held today and here are the meeting minutes. We had a
suggestion that we should share this information as it may be helpful.

A query for Pulp 3 Core RC blockers has been added to [1] and any
interested parties are invited to review and provide feedback (any items
missing or not needing to block the RC.)

Also, some of us learned what a cloud chamber [2] is and what to do with
leftover dry ice from the next Omaha steak delivery.

*04-Jan-2019*

*Action Items from last Sprint Planning*

   - daviddavis: RPM team will plan some RPM distibution/kickstart trees
   this sprint (add AI)


   - Planning - goal to have stories by next sprint - migration and tagged
   with proper Pulp 3 tags (check with Tanya when back)


   - dalley: paperwork to ensure work not lost
   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3812


   - dalley: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4023


   - austin: compile docs issues to discuss  with docs team (add AI)
   - create new story to move devel env (dkliban):
   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4234


*Dates & Sprint Goals/Focus*
https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans

Sprint 48 planning:
47 Dates: Friday Jan 04, 2019 - Thursday 24-Jan-2019
48 Dates: Friday Jan 25, 2019 - Thursday 14-Feb-2019
Jan 25 (date for next planning is 1st day of devconf?)
- Team members attending Devconf will ensure any planning items are
delegated prior to mtg
Dates for FOSDEM & Configmgmt Camp:
FOSDEM Feb 2-3
CfgMgmt Feb 4-6

*Other things happening during the sprint (including outages)*

   - Pulp 2.19 - depsolving issue 3740 grooming


   - Prep for devconf/FOSDEM/Cfgmgmt camp


   - Task moving unit tests Pulp 2 over to new OpenStack
   - RH staff PTO specifics redacted


*Current sprint:*
Anything not moving forward?
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=1
12

keep sat 6.5 items on sprint 4253, 4252, 4268
4189 - unsure if done during next sprint. build team staff can do as time
allows.
4066 - on hold, won't move to new sprint
4263 - won't move to new sprint

*Sprint candidates:*
https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26
4132 - not added, if Dana will note and add to sprint if no other
appropriate tasks left on sprint (low priority)


*Pending Items or Stakeholder concerns:*

   - Features that are in planning and anticipated to be ready to add
   before end of sprint.


   - add lazy sync feature - will discuss with Jeff - pass through cache
   (or maybe next sprint)


   - 4294 - design discussion


   - namespacing endpoints https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4279


*QE Focus:*
* Pulp3 High Priority Test Tickets
* OpenStack migration (to PSI Openstack)

*Action Items:*

   - rchan: new, assigned, post - move Monday morning


   - rchan: Clear Sprint Candidate https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=26


   - daviddavis: RPM team will plan some RPM distibution/kickstart trees
   this sprint


   - austin: discuss compiled docs issues to with docs team


   - rchan send note to pulp-dev mtg minutes


   - bmbouter - put together rc strategy etherpad to collaborate on
   communication about Pulp 3 RC

[1] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Sprint_Plans
[2] https://youtu.be/xky3f1aSkB8
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Spam on plan.io

[Robin Chan]

Removing incentive seems like a good tactic to try. And perhaps we can take
a look at some metrics to see if it's helping after trying for a bit.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:26 AM Austin Macdonald  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 3:57 PM Austin Macdonald 
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 2:23 PM Daniel Alley >
>>> Maybe the first comment / issue posted by an account would need to be
>>> approved, but once approved they could post subsequent comments / issues
>>> without delay?
>>>
>>>
>> @dalley, sounds right to me. I think this could be implemented using
>> bmbouters b) option, with 1 difference. If the user can't even file until
>> approved, I think we shouldn't do it. If the user can file an invisible
>> issue, I'm ok with this.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Brian Bouterse 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> b) create a "trusted users" group and have that allow users to either
>>> post comments, post issues, or both and then disable those permissions for
>>> "other accounts". This would prevent a new user from filing a bug in a
>>> self-service way though.
>>>
>>
>> b) Story >>> A new user is created, they file an issue. Issue is not
>> visible until approved. When issue is approved, user is moved to "trusted
>> user" group. Further issues are not delayed.
>>
>> This would fix the problem at the cost of delaying response to new
>> contributors at a critical time, right after their first contribution.
>> Using "trusted users" would allow us to filter out most issues,
>> significantly reducing the workload to review for spam.
>>
>
> Nothing has changed except my patience. Ugh.
>
> IMO we need to remove the incentive, which means hiding the first
> issue/comment of new users.
>
> Unless anyone is strongly against this, I'll file an issue and we can
> discuss the technical details there.
>
>
>> However, we could also users "trusted users" as an invisible flag that
>> makes no difference to the user. This would be the exact same amount of
>> work as b) for us, but new contributor issues are always visible. So after
>> all this, I'm leaning toward a) + 1/2 b)
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Brian Bouterse 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> a) manage the spam better
>>>
>>
>> a) Story >>> A new user is created they file an issue. Issue is visible
>> immediately. Spam review must review every new issue from every user.
>>
>> a) + 1/2 b) Story >>> A new user is created, they file an issue. Issue is
>> visible immediately. Issue is flagged internally for spam review, if not
>> spam, user is added to trusted group. Further issues would skip this
>> process.
>>
>> I have one last thought that might make b) more attractive, but its a
>> shot in the dark. Since the spam is coming from humans, someone is paying
>> them. If we never show the spam, we remove the incentive, and hopefully
>> someone will notice and stop it. If y'all think this is how things woud go
>> down, we could always do b) until the problem stops and switch to a) + 1/2
>> b).
>>
>
>> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 depsolving module errata

[Robin Chan]

I have a question.
Can you clarify the wording of "that particular module should be copied" in
the last 3 bullet use cases? Perhaps a use case? To me same wording implies
same behavior - or perhaps I'm not getting the distinction.  Thanks!


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:28 AM Milan Kovacik  wrote:

>
> Robin, I think you're right, we should include the folks.
>
> --
> milan
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Robin Chan 
> Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Pulp 2 depsolving module errata
> To: Milan Kovacik 
> Cc: Daniel Alley , Kersom 
>
>
> Can we continue convo in pull-dev? Feel like these use cases need to live
> somewhere not email & other may have some input/interest.
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:03 PM Milan Kovacik  wrote:
>
>> Hi Kersom,
>>
>> I don't fully understand all the usecases yet but let me try to put some
>> down here:
>> * a recursive copy of a module pulls over all module artifacts
>> * a recursive copy of a module pulls over all modular dependencies, the
>> other modules this module depends on
>> * a recursive copy of an artifact RPM pulls over all units the artifact
>> may depend on
>> * if a unit depends on a particular module:stream, that particular module
>> should be copied
>> * if a unit depends on a particular module:stream:version, that
>> particular module should be copied
>> * if a unit depends on a particular module:stream.architecture, then
>> again, that particular module should be copied
>>
>> Modules behave a bit like repositories --- the consumer is supposed to
>> enable a module and this should make DNF to prefer content from the module
>> over the "ursine" RPMs that provide the same treats or cause a conflict
>> with the modular RPMs (artifacts). To make the situation trickier, an
>> ursine RPM can (afaik) depend on a module (stream) and modules can depend
>> on other modules and the modular RPMs can depend on ursine RPMs. This has
>> some edge-case implications when it comes to the content copy itself:
>> * if there is an ursine RPM in a target repository and even if that
>> ursine RPM has a newer version than a modular RPM providing the same treat
>> (such as /bin/sh) and while that module is being copied, the modular
>> (outdated) RPM should be "pulled" together with the module
>> * if there are multiple modules with the same name that match the user
>> copy query, every module should be copied (including their dependencies),
>> even though the modules would conflict each other on a consumer system ---
>> one can't enable at the same time multiple streams of the same module
>>
>> More specific to Pulp, the modular repositories are expected not to be
>> closed on content dependencies; if this happens, Pulp shouldn't fail but
>> instead, it should copy as many of the dependencies as possible. Pulp
>> should not regress with modules in this regard i(n case we fix
>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4152).
>>
>> Further more, we might end up with two algorithms that resolve the
>> dependencies: a conservative one, that tries it's best to avoid
>> unintentional "updates" in the target  repository, such as we introduced in
>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2478 and another approach, that is more
>> greedy and copies everything that provides particular treat (a content unit
>> might depend on).
>>
>> Right now I've been just trying to experiment with the modular dependency
>> solving on top on the Issue #4152 fix
>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1226, trying to figure out how to
>> express these concerns in the libsolv terms while making sure the the two
>> algorithms in the patch wouldn't break with modular content. I've got some
>> progress but it's still in an early stage:
>> https://github.com/dparalen/pulp_rpm/commit/43ae38a4ea2a2a843a42cc993e88cd3bf480ee9b
>>
>> Actually, we never groomed the modular depsolving story
>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3740 so please take the usecases listed here
>> with a grain of salt.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> milan
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 9:54 PM Kersom  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Milan,
>>>
>>> If there is any feature/issue related to depsolving that should be
>>> tested or that QE should be aware of it, please , file test cases on
>>> pulp.plan.io.
>>>
>>> Then we will be able to understand the scenarios and clarify doubts with
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kersom
>>>
>>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Distributing Pulp3 Plans

[Robin Chan]

I've heard zero need for a or desire for Pulp 3 to be distributed other
than PyPI.
I've got no issues with closing an issue now and should things change in
the future we can resurrect or create a new story if needed.

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:40 AM Brian Bouterse  wrote:

> Please send feedback by Dec 7th.
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:49 AM Brian Bouterse 
> wrote:
>
>> The plan about 12-24 months ago was to distribute Pulp3 with Pulp itself
>> on a machine hosted in the osci.io community environment. We have this
>> ticket tracking that work [0] (still at NEW).
>>
>> I commented [1] that I think our distribution plans now involve mainly
>> PyPI releases, and we probably won't self-host our release infrastructure.
>> Is that what others think?
>>
>> If we aren't self-hosting with Pulp, can we close this ticket [0], clean
>> up the infra wiki [2], and ask OSCI to deprovision their machine?
>>
>> [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2325
>> [1]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2325#note-32
>> [2]:
>> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Infrastructure_&_Hosting#Distribute-Pulp-with-Pulp
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Brian
>>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Low on sprint items

[Robin Chan]

Hey Team,

We are getting very close to a Pulp 3 Core RC - so I'll ask you to take a
look at any issues still not on the sprint that you believe would block a
Pulp 3 Core RC.

The only gap I'm seeing is a few Katello P1 items that are not yet on our
sprint [1]. Also, new tasks for 3.0 release [2].

And with other bandwidth, we should start planning/pre-planning for
migrations, doc work  and other next items post RC.

Robin

[1] https://tinyurl.com/ycqyl94z
[2] https://tinyurl.com/pulp30new


On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:55 PM David Davis  wrote:

> There are only two items left on the sprint and one probably requires a
> member of the pulp_rpm team to work on it[0] while the other[1] probably
> needs a bit of design work and/or discussion. I'll probably pick up the rpm
> one tomorrow. If possible, we add should try to add some work to the
> sprint. I'm happy to get stuff groomed if needed.
>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4062
> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4061
>
> David
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Theme of the bachelor thesis

[Robin Chan]

Having only this exposure to the bachelor thesis, I've just been reading
for my own learning.

I'll only share that I would invite Vlada to perhaps write a blog post with
some summary type information targetting newcomers with an understanding of
git. Such a post might be a way to understand Pulp by allowing them to
relate existing understanding to pulp a little quicker.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Milan Kovacik  wrote:

> Folks,
>
> we've been discussing my proposal with Vlada recently and he's about to
> commit officially to it at the school.
> I'd like to poke for feedback esp. if there are concerns/doubts about the
> sanity of my proposal.
> Encouraging comments are of course welcome too ;)
>
> Cheers,
> milan
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:25 AM Milan Kovacik 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to propose a comparison of Git versioning model to Pulp3
>> versioning (and branching) model.
>> The textual part would briefly introduce both Git and Pulp, with focus on
>> their respective usecases, trying to identify overlapping scenarios.
>> Next it would in detail examine the versioning models of both Git and
>> Pulp3.
>> The main matter would compare implementation of Git versioning model in
>> Pulp3 (as e.g a fork) to the current versioning model.
>> The textual part would conclude with advantages and disadvantages of both
>> versioning models, reiterating over the usecases, comparing performance
>> (storage and time) of both the implementations.
>>
>> I believe this would have a direct practical impact on Pulp3, affecting
>> feature planning and if feasible, providing an alternative versioning
>> implementation[1][2].
>>
>> --
>> milan
>>
>> PS: I'm volunteering to oversee the thesis on the project part
>>
>> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3360
>> [2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3842
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:16 PM, Austin Macdonald 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> How about reproducibility? Bihan and I presented on this topic at scipy
>>> but there is a lot left to say/research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>> v=5czGgUG0oXA
>>>
>>> In the scientific community, reproducibility is a hot topic (I bet grad
>>> schools would love this!), and the computational aspect of it has been
>>> under-emphasized in the existing literature. Our talk focused on the
>>> fundamental problems of environmental reproducibility and how to use Pulp
>>> to solve them. Especially since the scope was narrow, we barely scratched
>>> the surface. There a ton of potential angles; some ideas are that you could
>>> catalog and compare technologies or discuss academic vs industry use cases
>>> and trends.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:01 AM Vladimir Dusek  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't ask you for a specific assignment, we'll set up it with Milan
>>>> later. I only need some idea on a topic.
>>>>
>>>> Scope of the work should be 40-50 standard pages. Additional
>>>> istructions could be find here - http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/info/
>>>> szz/pokyny_bp.php.en#pozadavky. However I don't think it's neccessary
>>>> for you to know them.
>>>>
>>>> All bachelor theses from our university last year could be find here -
>>>> http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/study/DP/BP.php.en. I presume most of them are
>>>> written in Czech but there are abstracts in English which might be useful
>>>> for inspiration.
>>>>
>>>> Random abstracts:
>>>>
>>>> Alias Analysis in C Compiler
>>>> -
>>>> This thesis is dedicated to the problem of alias analysis and
>>>> possibilities of its improvement in the LLVM framework. The goal of this
>>>> thesis is to improve the accuracy, which was achieved by extending the
>>>> existing implementation of Andresen algorithm to be field sensitive. The
>>>> terms related to alias analysis and algorithms of the alias analysis
>>>> available in LLVM are explained. These algorithms are compared according to
>>>> their base idea, features, and limitations. The implementation of the field
>>>> sensitivity has been tested using compiler test suites. Its impact on
>>>> program compilation speed and performance has been analyzed. The measured
>>>> results show an increase in the accuracy of alias analysis in the LLVM
>>>> framework.
>>>>
>>>> Reinforcement Learning for Starcraft Game Playing
>>>> ---

Re: [Pulp-dev] Theme of the bachelor thesis

[Robin Chan]

Hi Vladimir,

I'm not familiar with what types of topics are appropriate for this type of
project - could you share some criteria and examples of what makes a good
topic?

Robin

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Vladimir Dusek  wrote:

> Hi team,
>
> since September I'm in the third grade of bachelor studies and it means
> that I'm going to write a bachelor thesis. I haven't selected a topic yet
> and if it'll be possible I'd like to work on something that is relevant to
> Pulp. Do you have any idea?
>
> Thank you guys,
> Vlada
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp 3.0 RC roadmap and check-ins

[Robin Chan]

We have confirmed that deadline is not likely and are a bit stuck with good
options on getting this feature reigned in at the moment.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Ina Panova  wrote:

> Did we identify and confirm that the mentioned deadline is feasible? Or in
> order to complete this on time installer team members need to share the
> workload and commitment?
>
>
>
> 
> 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 Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:35 PM, Brian Bouterse 
> wrote:
>
>> That all sounds great.
>>
>> re: the installer. pulp_ansible as a plugin in particular is blocked on
>> the installer work, so I want to identify the timeline needs there. We're
>> marketing pulp_ansible at AnsibleFest starting Oct 2, and we need to have
>> the installer be ready for users then. Additionally we have to get the
>> installer's roles hosted on Galaxy by then, test using it from Galaxy, work
>> out any issues we find, rewrite the pulp_ansible install docs to recommend
>> the installer, and make instructional content around after that (blogs,
>> demos, etc). @daviddavis and I think that's going to take about 3 weeks of
>> effort, which means we really need the installer with all it's feature and
>> documentation by Sept 7th. We've mentioned this during some calls, but I
>> wanted to outline the need more here.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 4:14 PM, David Davis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Last week we met and discussed a release candidate (RC) milestone for
>>> Pulp 3.0. Here are the high level components we identified as being part of
>>> this RC milestone. I’ve also put down a feature shepherd for each (more on
>>> this below).
>>>
>>> Core
>>> - Ansible Installer - @asmacdo
>>> - Lazy sync - @bmbouter/@dawalker
>>> - Katello P1 items - @daviddavis (or another volunteer)
>>> - Content Protection - @jortel
>>>
>>> Other deliverables
>>> - Supported Bindings - @dkliban
>>> - Pulp 3 RPM Plugin Beta - @ttereshc
>>> - Pulp 3 Docker Plugins Beta - @ipanova
>>>
>>> In the next two weeks, I think we should create roadmaps of the
>>> remaining stories for each of these items. This should also ideally include
>>> a rough timeline or estimate of when the work can be completed. I'm
>>> imagining that each team can handle this and work with @rchan to discuss
>>> any staffing needs/assumptions.
>>>
>>> Secondly, during our Monday team meetings I’d propose we have brief
>>> weekly check-ins on the status of each feature until we reach our RC
>>> milestone. Each feature shepherd could provide a short, 1-2 min update on
>>> their component's status. I think this will help us remain focused on
>>> getting to an RC release without taking up too much time.
>>>
>>> Lastly, I am planning on getting the remaining Katello P1 items groomed
>>> and added to the next sprint (unless someone else wants to handle this
>>> work, let me know).
>>>
>>> As always, feedback is welcome. Thank you.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] Commit bit PUP-6

[Robin Chan]

+1
I like the clarification to the removal piece. You may accept the
suggestions if they are helpful.




On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 9:32 AM, David Davis  wrote:

> Assuming there are no major changes to the PUP, I’ll vote +1.
>
> Thanks for putting this together.
>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 7:21 AM Ina Panova  wrote:
>
>> PR updated,
>> ready for re-review.
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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 Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Ina Panova  wrote:
>>
>>> I have opened a PR for PUP-6 [0]  which describes the commit bit
>>> assignment/revocation process.
>>>
>>> Please take a look to review and provide feedback.
>>>
>>> I'd like to call for a vote by August 28, 2018. Per PUP-1[1], are the
>>> voting options:
>>>
>>> +1: "Will benefit the project and should definitely be adopted."
>>> +0: "Might benefit the project and is acceptable."
>>> -0: "Might not be the right choice but is acceptable."
>>> -1: "I have serious reservations that need to be thought through and
>>> addressed."
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/15
>>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md
>>> 
>>> 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."
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
> ___
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

Re: [Pulp-dev] 2.17.0 Dev Freeze - Tuesday, July 31

[Robin Chan]

I am checking in on build status.
Thanks, David for sending a note about newly discovered [4] and marking it
as required. Let's continue to use [0] to check that we have all the PR in.

Please check my understanding below on a few items.
1. The commit for [1] should be included in 2.17.0 even thought it missed
2.16.3 because we will use a fresh branch from master when starting the
2.17 build process. No new issues need be created, correct?
2. I marked the following issues as part of 2.17.0 [0] as I thought they
were missing from our list - please speak up if you disagree (or got any of
this wrong):
 - weak dependency [2] based on conversations during internal meeting
 - one of the issues/regressions for which we delayed the build [3]

Thanks,
Robin

[0] https://tinyurl.com/y96j92hl
[1] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3090
[2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3847
[3] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3899
[4] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3904


On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 5:30 AM, Ina Panova  wrote:

> 2.17.0 Release is delayed due to unforeseen discovered issues.
>
> For the new tentative dates please check the release schedule [0]
>
> Thank you.
>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/2170_Release_Schedule
>
>
>
> 
> 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 Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 4:17 AM, Robin Chan  wrote:
>
>> All Pulp2 core or plugin code included in the 2.17.0 release should
>> already be:
>> a) merged to master
>> b) associated with a story, refactor, task or a bugfix issue.
>>
>> Sorry for the late notice, our release contact is out sick unexpectedly
>> and I failed to handle this as the backup.
>>
>> The list of features & bug fixes to be included in 2.17.0 can be found
>> here[0]. The beta schedule[1] shows the 2.17.0 beta release date as
>> Tuesday August 7th.
>>
>> [0] https://tinyurl.com/y96j92hl
>> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/2170_Release_Schedule
>>
>>
>>
>
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Mailman message delivery delay

[Robin Chan]

We noticed a delay in delivery of messages for both the pulp-dev,
pulp-list, and pulp-security mailman groups starting ~Aug 1, 2018. I
believe this issue has been resolved as the archives now match what is in
my Inbox and we will continue to monitor the archives and work with support
if this issue isn't resolved.

Apologies for any delays in our responses or confusion with late delivery
of messages. Please reach out to us on freenode #pulp or #pulp-dev if you
need to report future issues with the mail distribution list.
___
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev