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

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Wed Dec 5 13:52:58 UTC 2018


Awesome, thanks!

David


On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:44 AM Austin Macdonald <austin at redhat.com> wrote:

> For those with ambiguity, I added the RC blocker to force discussion and
> [acceptance | closing].
>
> Added RC Blocker:
>
>    - Add task names: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2889
>    - Determine mutable fields: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2635
>    - pulp-manager migrate order: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3062
>       - @david - https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4067#note-5
>    - Asynchronous Distribution update/delete:
>    https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3044
>    - Distribution base_path model validation:
>    https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3051
>
> Closed:
>
>    - Viewable status endpoint w/out database running:
>    https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2850
>    - Port Dependencies to Python3: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2247
>    - Plugins can specify plugin API version:
>    https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2656
>
> No action:
>
>    - jwt: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248
>    - Add Publication.created (MODIFIED, david++):
>    https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2989
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/20181205/1b2cf733/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list