[Pulp-dev] Consider moving distribution to top level resource.
Jeff Ortel
jortel at redhat.com
Fri Oct 27 14:53:53 UTC 2017
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.
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3102
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com <mailto:jortel at redhat.com>> 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 <jortel at redhat.com <mailto:jortel at redhat.com>
> <mailto:jortel at redhat.com <mailto:jortel at redhat.com>>> 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?
> >
> >
> > https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033>
> <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033 <https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3033>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pulp-dev mailing list
> > Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com> <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>>
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev>
> <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michael Hrivnak
> >
> > Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
> >
> > Red Hat
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 847 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20171027/14f4dfd8/attachment.sig>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list