<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>What about a use case like this: "As a user, I want a repo to auto-update two base paths to maintain an old base_path for backwards compatibility during a base_path restructuring transition." </div>While ^ is not an MVP use case (I would argue), if we go forward with the feature to auto-update exactly 1 Distribution as part of the MVP, we cannot modify it later to handle N Distributions later due to semver. If we can't modify it later to be more general, then we can never fulfill a use case like ^ with this same feature. So I'm +0 an MVP that can auto-update N Distributions after publish but -1 on having the MVP perform exactly 1 Distribution update for the semver concerns above ^. </div>What do others think about ^? </div>-Brian </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeff Ortel <<a href="mailto:jortel@redhat.com" target="_blank">jortel@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 10/25/2017 12:00 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > I'm +1 to this plan. There are several distinct points of value and I agree w/ all of them. I'm -0 to adding > the Publisher.distribution_id field for auto publishing as an MVP feature. It's an important feature, but also ^^ did you mean auto distribution? > if we had feedback from users later maybe we would position it differently. Maybe it should be a list of > distributions 0,1,* instead of 0,1 perhaps? Semantic versioning would constrain our ability to change this > after the 3.0 GA so we want to make sure what we do is right. This sounds right, but I'm not a user so I'm not > totally sure. The known use case for auto distribution comes from pulp2. That is "As a user, I want my publication automatically available through one distribution." This is how pulp2 works today. There may be a use case for new publications to be automatically available through multiple distribution but I can't think of how that would be useful. Anyone else? And, no user has yet asked for it. Anyone asking for it? > > I think this would be good to write up into Redmine and share a link to it. <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3102" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3102</a> <div><div class="h5"> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Jeff Ortel <<a href="mailto:jortel@redhat.com">jortel@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jortel@redhat.com">jortel@redhat.com</a>>> wrote: > > > > On 10/24/2017 09:29 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote: > > There is a lot to like about this. > > > > Since the publisher is the one that would do the auto-updating of a distribution, it makes sense for it to own > > a reference to the distribution it should be updating. > > > > One question: how might this impact authorization? I know that's not in the MVP, but we'll need to tackle it > > eventually. It's convenient to say a specific user can do anything within the scope of a repo's path. This may > > not be worth worrying too much about, but it is something to factor in. > > > > Beyond what you identified, the first thing I thought of is that it solves a hotfix use case for which we've > > never offered a good solution. It goes like this: > > > > - user has a repo that changes over time > > - user makes a recent content set available to testing infrastructure, and eventually promotes that to > > production infrastructure. (in pulp 2 this was a copy between repos, and in pulp 3 of course it is multiple > > distributions aiming at different publications) > > - user has a testing cycle of days, weeks or perhaps months (common in certain industries) before a content > > set gets promoted > > - one day, the next heartbleed happens. User wants to forget all about the content set being tested and needs > > to just deploy the heartbleed fix on top of the content set currently in production. > > Exactly. I was imagining the hotfix, Y stream, Z stream repositories/publications promoted through the same > set of distributions. > > > > > > So how does the user bypass the normal flow and hotfix the production content set? If Distribution was a > > top-level resource, it becomes simple. The user would create a new repo that is a clone of the content set > > currently in production, then add just the heartbleed fix. They could update their testing distribution to > > serve that publication for a brief period if they want, and then update the production distribution to serve > > it. After the dust settles, they can go back to the normal repository and its flow of changing content sets. > > > > What other factors can you folks think of? > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Jeff Ortel <<a href="mailto:jortel@redhat.com">jortel@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jortel@redhat.com">jortel@redhat.com</a>> </div></div><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jortel@redhat.com">jortel@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jortel@redhat.com">jortel@redhat.com</a>>>> wrote: > > > > During a discussion with Austin to resolve a problem implementing #3033, an interested question was > raised - > > "Why do Distributions needs to be owned by Publishers?" This question came up when considering a > solution to > > a DRF difficulty related to both Publications and Distributions being nested under publisher/ AND > related to > > each other. The idea being considered was to move Distributions to a top level resource. Here are the > > benefits: > > > > 1. Resolves current DRF nesting issue w/ #3033. (This is minor). > > 2. A distribution could be updated to reference any publication. This is more flexible. > > 3. Since Distribution.base_path is unique across all repositories/publishers, it might be more > intuitive to be > > a top level resource? > > > > Currently, the Distribution.publisher_id represents a parent-child relationship the mainly exists to > support > > automatic distribution. When the publisher creates a new publication, it is automatically > associated to any > > of the publisher's distributions marked as auto_updated=True. > > > > There are two challenges to moving the Distribution to a top-level resources. > > > > 1. The distribution name is currently unique by (publisher_id, name). > > 2. This would break automatic distribution as currently implemented. > > > > Here are a few options to resolving these challenges: > > > > 1. The name could be unique across all distributions. This seems reasonable. > > 2. Redesign automatic distribution. (see proposal below). > > 3. Reconsider automatic distribution. > > > > --- > > > > Proposal to redesign automatic distribution. > > > > The use case for automatic distribution is similar to automatic publishing. The user has updated a > > repository; has published it; and now wants to consume content. This could be done by making 3 API > calls: 1 > > sync; 2 publish; 3 update-a-distribution. But, based on pulp2, users want to do this with 1 API call. > > > > So, here is the proposal. > > > > 1. Move distributions to the top level resource (no longer owned by a publisher). > > 2. Remove Distribution.publisher_id and Distribution.auto_updated. > > 3. Add (optional) Publisher.distribution_id. When set, the referenced distribution will be updated > with newly > > created publications. > > > > > > Publisher <---* Publication > > | ^ (0,1) > > | | > > | | > > v (0,1) | > > Distribution -------- > > > > --- > > > > I'm not convinced about all this but think we should consider. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > <a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033</a> <<a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033</a>> > <<a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033</a> <<a href="https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033</a>>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list </div></div>> > <a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a>>> > > <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a> <<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a>> > <<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a> <<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a>>> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Michael Hrivnak > > > > Principal Software Engineer, RHCE > > > > Red Hat > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > <a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a>> > <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a> <<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a>> > > </div></div> _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list <a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a> </blockquote></div> </div>