Re: [Pulp-dev] Seeking Nomenclature

[Eric Helms]

Thanks for the replies so far. Sounds like parent -> child might be the
best nomenclature that has been used previously and fits our style. In our
case there is only one Pulp that is master of the universe and every other
Pulp is simply a copy of pieces of the master errr parent but never
contains independent data.

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Austin Macdonald 
wrote:

> We also have called it "Pulp to Pulp sync" informally.
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:23 PM, David Davis 
> wrote:
>
>> So syncing from one Pulp server to another Pulp server is usually called
>> 'natural syncing'. See [0][1].
>>
>> AFAIK, there is no official concept of master/nodes/etc in Pulp anymore
>> since in the case of natural syncing, there’s nothing special about either
>> instance of Pulp. We have used the terms ‘parent’ and ‘child’ though (as in
>> the blog post I linked to).
>>
>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/1488
>> [1] https://pulpproject.org/2016/12/07/deprecating-nodes/
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Eric Helms  wrote:
>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> The simple question is there any nomenclature used when referring to a
>>> Pulp server and another Pulp server that syncs from the previous one?
>>>
>>> The background behind this question is as follows. Pulp at a time had
>>> the concept of masters and nodes. With the removal of the official
>>> node-concept and code, we still have references to Pulp "nodes" in our code
>>> base. If there is newer nomenclature for the case of having a Pulp master
>>> that other Pulp instances sync from I'd like to adopt that to help with
>>> parity across communities.
>>>
>>> I should also ask if "Pulp master" is correct as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Seeking Nomenclature

[Austin Macdonald]

We also have called it "Pulp to Pulp sync" informally.

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:23 PM, David Davis  wrote:

> So syncing from one Pulp server to another Pulp server is usually called
> 'natural syncing'. See [0][1].
>
> AFAIK, there is no official concept of master/nodes/etc in Pulp anymore
> since in the case of natural syncing, there’s nothing special about either
> instance of Pulp. We have used the terms ‘parent’ and ‘child’ though (as in
> the blog post I linked to).
>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/1488
> [1] https://pulpproject.org/2016/12/07/deprecating-nodes/
>
>
>
> David
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Eric Helms  wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> The simple question is there any nomenclature used when referring to a
>> Pulp server and another Pulp server that syncs from the previous one?
>>
>> The background behind this question is as follows. Pulp at a time had the
>> concept of masters and nodes. With the removal of the official node-concept
>> and code, we still have references to Pulp "nodes" in our code base. If
>> there is newer nomenclature for the case of having a Pulp master that other
>> Pulp instances sync from I'd like to adopt that to help with parity across
>> communities.
>>
>> I should also ask if "Pulp master" is correct as well.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Seeking Nomenclature

[David Davis]

So syncing from one Pulp server to another Pulp server is usually called
'natural syncing'. See [0][1].

AFAIK, there is no official concept of master/nodes/etc in Pulp anymore
since in the case of natural syncing, there’s nothing special about either
instance of Pulp. We have used the terms ‘parent’ and ‘child’ though (as in
the blog post I linked to).

[0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/1488
[1] https://pulpproject.org/2016/12/07/deprecating-nodes/



David

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Eric Helms  wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> The simple question is there any nomenclature used when referring to a
> Pulp server and another Pulp server that syncs from the previous one?
>
> The background behind this question is as follows. Pulp at a time had the
> concept of masters and nodes. With the removal of the official node-concept
> and code, we still have references to Pulp "nodes" in our code base. If
> there is newer nomenclature for the case of having a Pulp master that other
> Pulp instances sync from I'd like to adopt that to help with parity across
> communities.
>
> I should also ask if "Pulp master" is correct as well.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> ___
> 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