[Pulp-dev] Possible Pulp3 RC Blocker issues from backlog

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Mon Dec 3 20:20:47 UTC 2018


Thanks for digging through older issues to find potential RC blockers.

2889 - +1 to making it an RC blocker
2635 - +1 here as well
2850 - I spent some time working on this and didn’t get far. I think we
should just require the db to be running. I vote to close it out.
2989 - +1 to RC blocker
3044 - I guess we should revisit 3051 and decide on a design before the RC
which will determine if the distribution endpoints need to be async?
2247 - Agreed on closing. Seems like we open issues on an as-needed basis
2656 - Seems like this is done or am I missing something?
3062 - Will checking in migrations to source control not solve this problem?
3248 - I haven’t heard anyone asking for jwt so I would say we don’t need
it. We can just leave the issue open I think.

David


On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:41 PM Austin Macdonald <austin at redhat.com> wrote:

> To be on the safe side, I'd like to highlight issues that *might* need to
> be RC blockers. Please reply directly onto the issue, I'll update this
> thread periodically if necessary.
>
> REST API, backwards incompatible changes:
>
>    - Add Task Names:
>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2889
>       - IMO: We should make this an RC Blocker, because this will be an
>       additional requirement for every task in every plugin.
>    - Determine mutable fields
>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2635
>       - IMO: someone (or a group) should take this as assigned and audit
>       the mutability of fields. If we find one that needs to change, it will be a
>       backwards incompatible change to the REST API, so this should have the RC
>       blocker tack.
>    - Status API without db connection
>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2850
>       - IMO: RC blocker or close. As it is the db connection field is not
>       useful, and later removal would be backwards incompatible.
>    - Add new field, Publication.created
>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2989
>       - IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a backwards incompatible
>       change.
>    - Asynchronous Distribution update/delete
>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3044
>       - IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a backwards incompatible
>       change.
>
> Packaging
>
>    - Port dependencies to Python 3
>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2247
>       - IMO: It seems like if this weren't done, we'd be having problems.
>       Anyone mind if I close this one? If we do need to keep it open, should it
>       be an RC blocker?
>    - Plugins can declare PluginAPI version
>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2656
>       - IMO: Are we happy with what we've got now? If we want to change
>       it, now is the time.
>
> Misc
>
>    - pulp-manager migrate order
>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3062
>       - IMO: RC Blocker. This is how users should migrate, so it should
>       be correct before RC
>    - jwt
>       - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248
>       - This was removed from Beta (MVP) but do we need this for RC/GA?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181203/2973d981/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list