[Pulp-dev] let's rename RepositoryVersion to Snapshot
Jeff Ortel
jortel at redhat.com
Tue Apr 24 17:32:05 UTC 2018
On 03/20/2018 09:47 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> I think the change would be positive in several ways. Snapshot is a
> more familiar term that we can give content on what that means in Pulp
> (content not settings). I think this will make Pulp more approachable.
> It also aligns with the language aptly uses which I see as a good
> thing for clarity in our similar software space. They define a
> snapshot as a "immutable list of packages".
> https://www.aptly.info/doc/overview/
>
> This also solves the inconsistent naming problem between
> RepositoryVersion and RepoVersion. We try to enforce a standard but
> people still shorten it because the name is just so long. Renaming it
> to snapshot would resolve this.
>
> It would be painful, but a fancy IDE can do most of the renaming
> automatically.
>
> So a +1 from me.
+1
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:20 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com
> <mailto:daviddavis at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> I have some reservations about using the name Snapshot.
> Specifically, I don’t think the snapshot term is a good fit. As
> wikipedia says [0], in CS a snapshot represents a state of
> something "in the past.” How would we describe the current state
> of the repository’s content then? I think "current version" would
> make sense but not "current snapshot.”
>
> Also, changing the code in pulpcore and plugins is going to be a
> pain. Especially with the other things we have planned like
> renaming Importers to Remotes. I think this should factor into our
> decision as well.
>
> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot>
>
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Austin Macdonald
> <austin at redhat.com <mailto:austin at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> "Snapshot" is a nice way to explain what a RepositoryVersion
> is, especially in the context of Publications. "Publish a
> snapshot." I like the idea, and I informally floated it
> around PulpCon but decided not to propose it because:
>
> * Snapshot is a little misleading about the actual data we
> store. Specifically, since RepositoryVersions are stored
> as diffs, when a user views the "content in a version",
> this is calculated. This is a subtle point, and hopefully
> not user facing at all, but I think snapshot implies a
> little bit more certainty than we can offer.
> * A snapshot also implies a slightly different workflow to
> me. The workflow I expect with snapshots is to change
> Repositories "willy nilly", and when you are satisfied,
> you "take" an snapshot. Versions imply the workflow we
> have, which is that any time the content set of a
> Repository is changed, a new version is created.
>
> However, I think those concerns are minor and are overshadowed
> by the potential benefits. Also, I see a direct connection to
> the thread "Plugin relationship to tasks". The name
> Snapshot/RepositoryVersion is part of the choice of how we
> portray the changing of content set of a repo.
>
> 1. We can "change a repo" which creates a new version.
> 2. We can "create a new version" which has different content.
>
> To me (1) implies "dispatching a task that has the side effect
> of creating a new repository version. It would lend itself
> well to the concept of "managing repositories" rather than
> "managing versions/snapshots". If we choose this way, I think
> the name Snapshot conceptually makes sense.
>
> (2) implies a POST to create a new RepositoryVersion. As
> explained in the plugin tasks thread, there are some problems
> with this, but it is similar to the concept of creating a git
> commit. I think we wouldn't think of "creating a new Snapshot"
> to change the content.
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Dennis Kliban
> <dkliban at redhat.com <mailto:dkliban at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> I propose that we rename the RepositoryVersion model in
> Pulp 3 to Snapshot. The REST API would also change to use
> /api/v3/repositories/<uuid>/snapshot/
>
> The Snapshot name is a better description of what a
> repository version is and it is also much shorter in length.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -Dennis
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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 <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/20180424/68c14883/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list