[Pulp-dev] repository versions update

[Dennis Kliban]

I have a hard objection to including versioned repositories in 3.0. We
agreed to make sure that our current design would not prevent us from
adding versioned repositories in the future. We did NOT agree to including
versioned repositories in 3.0 release. This is a big code change that did
not go through our regular planning process. I greatly appreciate your
effort in driving this feature forward, but we should take a step back and
go through our regular process. I am also concerned that adding such a big
change at this time will delay the beta.

-Dennis


On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Michael Hrivnak <mhrivnak at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Following up on previous discussions, I did an analysis of how repository
> versioning would impact Pulp 3's current REST API and plugin API. A lot has
> changed since we last discussed the topic (in May 2017), such as how we
> handle publications, and how the REST API is laid out. You can read the
> analysis here:
>
> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Repository_Versions
>
> We previously discussed and vetted the mechanics at great length. While
> there was broad agreement on the value to Pulp 3, there was uncertainty
> about the details of how it would impact REST clients and plugin writers,
> and also uncertainty about how long it would take to fully implement.
>
> In the course of my recent analysis, two things became clear. 1) both
> current APIs are not compatible and would have to change. Details are on
> the wiki page above. 2) the PoC from earlier this year indeed covers the
> hard parts, leaving mostly DRF details to sort out.
>

I don't agree with your assessment that the current REST API is not
compatible with adding repository versions. A repository version is it's
own resource that can be added


>
> I started rebasing the PoC onto current 3.0-dev, and within an hour I had
> it working with the updated REST endpoints. With that having been so easy,
> I threw caution to the wind, and within a few hours I had a fully
> functional branch that covered all the key use cases.
>
> - sync creates a new version
> - versions and their content sets are visible through the REST API
> - each version shows what content was added and removed
> - versions can be deleted, which queues a task that squashes changes as
> previously discussed
> - the ChangeSet and pulp_file were updated to work with versions
> - publish defaults to using the latest version
>
> I also created a set of tests to help prove that it behaves correctly:
>
> https://gist.github.com/mhrivnak/69af54063dff7465212914094dff34c2
>
> I have just about 12 hours of recent work into it, and the code is
> PR-ready. It's just missing doc updates and release notes. It's been
> difficult to keep discussion moving toward a full plan due to the
> uncertainties mentioned above, so hopefully this can alleviate those
> concerns and give everyone something concrete to look at.
>
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3228
> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/20
>
> Two notable items are missing. One is that there is no way to arbitrarily
> add and remove content from a repo now, since this removes the
> "repositorycontent" endpoint. But we need to solve that with a more formal
> and bulk add/remove API anyway. I also found that the "repositorycontent"
> endpoint was not using tasks, and thus there was no repo locking, so it
> needed additional work anyway. Based on this overall effort, I think it
> will be very easy to add if we just agree on what the endpoints should look
> like.
>
> The other is that publish does not in this PR accept a reference to a
> version. It always uses the latest. That would also be a very easy
> enhancement to make.
>
> I am happy to support getting this merged as I transition to being a more
> passive community member, assuming there are no objections. I am also of
> course happy to help support this into the future, as I believe strongly in
> its value and importance (see previous thread).
>
> Please provide feedback and questions. If a live meeting this week would
> help expedite evaluation of this effort, I'm happy to schedule that. And
> assuming there are no hard objections, I'm happy to proceed with
> documentation updates.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
>
> Michael Hrivnak
> Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
>
> Red Hat
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171128/7369c1ad/attachment.htm>