[Pulp-dev] Consider moving distribution to top level resource.
Brian Bouterse
bbouters at redhat.com
Tue Oct 31 20:07:35 UTC 2017
What about a use case like this: "As a user, I want a repo to auto-update
two base paths to maintain an old base_path for backwards compatibility
during a base_path restructuring transition."
While ^ is not an MVP use case (I would argue), if we go forward with the
feature to auto-update exactly 1 Distribution as part of the MVP, we cannot
modify it later to handle N Distributions later due to semver. If we can't
modify it later to be more general, then we can never fulfill a use case
like ^ with this same feature. So I'm +0 an MVP that can auto-update N
Distributions after publish but -1 on having the MVP perform exactly 1
Distribution update for the semver concerns above ^.
What do others think about ^?
-Brian
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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>
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171031/2d75e778/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list