[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 installer re-work proposal
rchan at redhat.com
Mon Dec 11 16:38:40 UTC 2017
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.
#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.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
More information about the Pulp-dev