[Pulp-dev] Seeking Nomenclature

[Austin Macdonald]

We also have called it "Pulp to Pulp sync" informally.

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:23 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> So syncing from one Pulp server to another Pulp server is usually called
> 'natural syncing'. See [0][1].
>
> AFAIK, there is no official concept of master/nodes/etc in Pulp anymore
> since in the case of natural syncing, there’s nothing special about either
> instance of Pulp. We have used the terms ‘parent’ and ‘child’ though (as in
> the blog post I linked to).
>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/1488
> [1] https://pulpproject.org/2016/12/07/deprecating-nodes/
>
>
>
> David
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> The simple question is there any nomenclature used when referring to a
>> Pulp server and another Pulp server that syncs from the previous one?
>>
>> The background behind this question is as follows. Pulp at a time had the
>> concept of masters and nodes. With the removal of the official node-concept
>> and code, we still have references to Pulp "nodes" in our code base. If
>> there is newer nomenclature for the case of having a Pulp master that other
>> Pulp instances sync from I'd like to adopt that to help with parity across
>> communities.
>>
>> I should also ask if "Pulp master" is correct as well.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180219/3888ad02/attachment.htm>