<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:18 PM Tanya Tereshchenko <<a href="mailto:ttereshc@redhat.com">ttereshc@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi Grant, <br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for putting this together.</div><div>It sounds about right, as a general idea of what needs to happen.</div><div><br></div><div>I would leave it to a person who performs all the git fu to figure out exact commits and details and to the reviewer of all those changes, when PR 1984 is ready to be merged and releases can be done.</div><div>To say yes, or no, to the plan would mean to check properly all the commits/details and it likely would be more time effective to do it when the time comes to perform all those steps.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Concur.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Off the top of my head:</div><div> - pulp_rpm 3.11 needs to be compatible with pulpcore >=3.7,<3.13 as 3.10 does.</div><div> - `re-apply the auto-pub/dist-schema changes` should include a migration update to adjust the dependency in it.</div><div><br></div><div>David,</div><div>All the rush and hassle is happening because of the changes with migrations and compatibility with an older release. Some commits which need to be reapplied have migrations.</div><div>Whichever way a person who does it decides to do, the migrations order should be the same on 3.11 branch and on the master.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm going to submit a PR to get pulp_rpm's CI unbroken, that has to happen before we do anything else. THEN I will respond to final review-comments on PR 1984. Once that passes, THEN we can talk about what happens next. (That PR, for example, is affected by the proposed reverts, because its migration is currently built on-top-of the one(s) being reverted and will need to be renamed. So we/I probably don't want to merge it, until post-revert, and an update to match the new State Of The World at that point.)</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, first things first...</div><div><br></div><div>G</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Tanya</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 7:02 PM David Davis <<a href="mailto:daviddavis@redhat.com" target="_blank">daviddavis@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">What if you create a 3.11 release branch and then revert the commits on the 3.11 branch? That would save you from having to reapply the two commits. <div><br></div><div>You could also pin to pulpcore < 3.12 on the 3.11 branch to get the branch passing while you work on fixing the enqueue problem on master.<br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>David</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:49 AM Grant Gainey <<a href="mailto:ggainey@redhat.com" target="_blank">ggainey@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hey folks,<div><br></div><div>We've been talking about how we need a pulpcore/3.7-to-3.11-compatible release of pulp_rpm. The static_context change requires a schema-change, and it has to be available to katello-3.18 (and hence pulpcore-3.7)</div><div><br></div><div>The static_context change is <a href="https://github.com/pulp/pulp_rpm/pull/1984" target="_blank">PR#1984</a></div><div><br></div><div>Right now, pulp-rpm/master has changes that require pulpcore/3.12 or later. Those changes are:</div><div><br></div><div><font face="monospace">d0c9badd Refactor distribution migration 0032<br></font></div><div><font face="monospace">fbaadaca Add support for automatic publishing and distributing</font><br><div><br></div><div>In addition, pulp_rpm/master is <b>currently broken</b> because it still references the deprecated enqueue_with_reservation(), that just got removed from pulpcore/master.</div><div><br></div><div>As I understand it, what needs to happen #SOON, is the following:</div><div><ol><li>revert the two commits above and merge, </li><li>get the static_context change updated (since a migration will have Left the Building) and get it merged, </li><li>merge any other fixes that won't break 3.7-compat [OPTIONAL], and THEN </li><li>cut 3.11 as compatible with 3.7-thru-3.10 pulpcore</li></ol></div><div>Once pulp_rpm/3.11 is released, we can then:</div><div><ol><li>re-apply the auto-pub/dist-schema changes,</li><li>fix enqueue-problem, </li><li>mark pulp_rpm/master as 3.12+ compat, and finally</li><li>release pulp_rpm/3.12 to be ready for pulpcore-3.13</li></ol></div><div>And this all needs to happen by next week?</div><div><br></div><div>Is there anything I'm missing here?</div><div><br></div><div>G</div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Grant Gainey</div><div>Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering</div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Pulp-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com" target="_blank">Pulp-dev@redhat.com</a><br>
<a href="https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Grant Gainey</div><div>Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering</div></div></div></div></div></div>