[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 installer re-work proposal

[Brian Bouterse]

I read through the proposal, and I agree with much of the thinking and it's
conclusions. The user experience of 3 install types (pypi, source, dev)
that can be installed like the example at the end of the proposal would be
really great. In working towards that goal, I think we should take some
incremental steps (see below) and then look at the proposal again to
continue to close the gap in between what we have and that proposal. Maybe
moving the proposal to the wiki could be good to allow it to be maintained
over time?

Also, after some IRC convo, we identified that getting the dev role to be
run outside of Vagrant is a basic separation that we can do to work towards
that overall proposal. It's also a basic need for the community, so there
is much derivative value in that work also. I'm hoping that work gets
written into an issue and groomed via the list to be added to the sprint.

@ichimonji10, thanks for writing this up and calling it back for additional
attention. I do believe this will benefit the Pulp community!

-Brian




On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com> wrote:

> Any more feedback on this? The current state of affairs is still a daily
> drag on the productivity of anyone writing tests for Pulp 3 - people like
> me.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180119/699dbb22/attachment.htm>