[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.


> 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