[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 installer re-work proposal

[Robin Chan]

Jeremy,

I know we discussed this idea before - thank you very much for putting
together a write up & sending it to the list for discussion. I hope
you get lots of feedback.

Quick feedback:
#1. A date of when you would like feedback would be helpful.
#2. Implementation Strategy section - it would be helpful is you named
each option something short & sweet, and then refer to them farther
on. In quickly reading over "this strategy" is a bit hard to keep
track of which option you are providing thoughts on.
#3. In quick scanning of this write up, I remember you anticipated
that developer's had different needs than end users and QE. I don't
see them listed very clearly - have you had a chance to describe your
knowledge/assumption of what those needs are and how the proposals
either do or don't address them? I take it that in proposing the 3rd
option that those concerns are addressed?
#4 I'd end your proposal with a quick summary of your proposed solution.

I'm still not quite clear what next steps are. But I don't have much
experience in this area. It seems like you are asking for feedback in
support of the last option, but I am not clear on what next steps or
what proceeding with support on that proposal would look like.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
Robin

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I've written up a proposal outlining why I think some changes should be made
> to the Pulp 3 installer, what those changes should be, and how we could make
> those changes happen. It's attached. I'd love to get some feedback. Please
> have a read and write down your thoughts. If the feedback is positive, we
> can make redmine issues and start going through the usual planning
> processes.
>
> -Jwewmy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>