[Pulp-dev] Possible Pulp3 RC Blocker issues from backlog
Jeff Ortel
jortel at redhat.com
Fri Dec 7 16:49:57 UTC 2018
Decisions look good to me.
On 12/5/18 11:36 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:daviddavis at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Awesome, thanks!
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:44 AM Austin Macdonald <austin at redhat.com
> <mailto: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
> <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
> o @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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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:
> o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2889
> o IMO: We should make this an RC Blocker,
> because this will be an additional requirement
> for every task in every plugin.
> * Determine mutable fields
> o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2635
> o 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
> o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2850
> o 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
> o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2989
> o IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a
> backwards incompatible change.
> * Asynchronous Distribution update/delete
> o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3044
> o IMO: RC blocker or close, this would be a
> backwards incompatible change.
>
> Packaging
>
> * Port dependencies to Python 3
> o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2247
> o 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
> o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2656
> o 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
> o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3062
> o IMO: RC Blocker. This is how users should
> migrate, so it should be correct before RC
> * jwt
> o https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3248
> o This was removed from Beta (MVP) but do we
> need this for RC/GA?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181207/0f1869fd/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list