[Pulp-dev] Possible Pulp3 RC Blocker issues from backlog

[Austin Macdonald]

For those with ambiguity, I added the RC blocker to force discussion and
[acceptance | closing].

Added RC Blocker:

   - Add task names: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2889
   - Determine mutable fields: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2635
   - pulp-manager migrate order: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3062
      - @david - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4067#note-5
   - Asynchronous Distribution update/delete:
   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3044
   - Distribution base_path model validation:
   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3051

Closed:

   - Viewable status endpoint w/out database running:
   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2850
   - Port Dependencies to Python3: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2247
   - Plugins can specify plugin API version:
   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2656

No action:

   - jwt: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248
   - Add Publication.created (MODIFIED, david++):
   https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2989


On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> Thanks for digging through older issues to find potential RC blockers.
>
> 2889 - +1 to making it an RC blocker
> 2635 - +1 here as well
> 2850 - I spent some time working on this and didn’t get far. I think we
> should just require the db to be running. I vote to close it out.
> 2989 - +1 to RC blocker
> 3044 - I guess we should revisit 3051 and decide on a design before the RC
> which will determine if the distribution endpoints need to be async?
> 2247 - Agreed on closing. Seems like we open issues on an as-needed basis
> 2656 - Seems like this is done or am I missing something?
> 3062 - Will checking in migrations to source control not solve this
> problem?
> 3248 - I haven’t heard anyone asking for jwt so I would say we don’t need
> it. We can just leave the issue open I think.
>
> David
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:41 PM Austin Macdonald <austin at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> To be on the safe side, I'd like to highlight issues that *might* need to
>> be RC blockers. Please reply directly onto the issue, I'll update this
>> thread periodically if necessary.
>>
>> REST API, backwards incompatible changes:
>>
>>    - Add Task Names:
>>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2889
>>       - IMO: We should make this an RC Blocker, because this will be an
>>       additional requirement for every task in every plugin.
>>    - Determine mutable fields
>>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2635
>>       - IMO: someone (or a group) should take this as assigned and audit
>>       the mutability of fields. If we find one that needs to change, it will be a
>>       backwards incompatible change to the REST API, so this should have the RC
>>       blocker tack.
>>    - Status API without db connection
>>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2850
>>       - IMO: RC blocker or close. As it is the db connection field is
>>       not useful, and later removal would be backwards incompatible.
>>    - Add new field, Publication.created
>>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2989
>>       - IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a backwards incompatible
>>       change.
>>    - Asynchronous Distribution update/delete
>>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3044
>>       - IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a backwards incompatible
>>       change.
>>
>> Packaging
>>
>>    - Port dependencies to Python 3
>>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2247
>>       - IMO: It seems like if this weren't done, we'd be having
>>       problems. Anyone mind if I close this one? If we do need to keep it open,
>>       should it be an RC blocker?
>>    - Plugins can declare PluginAPI version
>>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2656
>>       - IMO: Are we happy with what we've got now? If we want to change
>>       it, now is the time.
>>
>> Misc
>>
>>    - pulp-manager migrate order
>>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3062
>>       - IMO: RC Blocker. This is how users should migrate, so it should
>>       be correct before RC
>>    - jwt
>>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248
>>       - This was removed from Beta (MVP) but do we need this for RC/GA?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20181205/d9078257/attachment.htm>