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

[Brian Bouterse]

I commented on the jwt one that I think it can be closed and why:
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248#note-6

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:54 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181205/126fd565/attachment.htm>