[Pulp-dev] let's rename RepositoryVersion to Snapshot

[David Davis]

I’m not too worried about the change being too large. However, I agree with
@dalley though about snapshot not fitting my mental model of how I view
snapshots so any work seems like a loss to me.

I’m at -1 but am happy to talk more about it.


David

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

> I think of a "snapshot" like a VM snapshot or a Windows restore point - an
> archival copy of a very fluid and non-discrete system at one point in
> time.  By that understanding, the term RepositoryVersion probably fits
> better.
>
> I acknowledge the other benefits though.  -/+0?
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The article you link to just says that "a snapshot is the state of a
>> system at a particular point in time". The point in time can be now or in
>> the past.
>>
>> The current state of a repository's content would be described as the
>> latest or most recent snapshot of a repository.
>>
>> I am not too worried about the pain of doing the refactoring across
>> multiple repos.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:20 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have some reservations about using the name Snapshot. Specifically, I
>>> don’t think the snapshot term is a good fit. As wikipedia says [0], in CS a
>>> snapshot represents a state of something "in the past.” How would we
>>> describe the current state of the repository’s content then? I think
>>> "current version" would make sense but not "current snapshot.”
>>>
>>> Also, changing the code in pulpcore and plugins is going to be a pain.
>>> Especially with the other things we have planned like renaming Importers to
>>> Remotes. I think this should factor into our decision as well.
>>>
>>> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot
>>>
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Austin Macdonald <austin at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Snapshot" is a nice way to explain what a RepositoryVersion is,
>>>> especially in the context of Publications. "Publish a snapshot."  I like
>>>> the idea, and I informally floated it around PulpCon but decided not to
>>>> propose it because:
>>>>
>>>>    - Snapshot is a little misleading about the actual data we store.
>>>>    Specifically, since RepositoryVersions are stored as diffs, when a user
>>>>    views the "content in a version", this is calculated. This is a subtle
>>>>    point, and hopefully not user facing at all, but I think snapshot implies a
>>>>    little bit more certainty than we can offer.
>>>>    - A snapshot also implies a slightly different workflow to me. The
>>>>    workflow I expect with snapshots is to change Repositories "willy nilly",
>>>>    and when you are satisfied, you "take" an snapshot. Versions imply the
>>>>    workflow we have, which is that any time the content set of a Repository is
>>>>    changed, a new version is created.
>>>>
>>>> However, I think those concerns are minor and are overshadowed by the
>>>> potential benefits. Also, I see a direct connection to the thread "Plugin
>>>> relationship to tasks". The name Snapshot/RepositoryVersion is part of the
>>>> choice of how we portray the changing of content set of a repo.
>>>>
>>>>    1. We can "change a repo" which creates a new version.
>>>>    2. We can "create a new version" which has different content.
>>>>
>>>> To me (1) implies "dispatching a task that has the side effect of
>>>> creating a new repository version. It would lend itself well to the
>>>> concept of "managing repositories" rather than "managing
>>>> versions/snapshots". If we choose this way, I think the name Snapshot
>>>> conceptually makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> (2) implies a POST to create a new RepositoryVersion. As explained in
>>>> the plugin tasks thread, there are some problems with this, but it is
>>>> similar to the concept of creating a git commit. I think we wouldn't
>>>> think of "creating a new Snapshot" to change the content.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I propose that we rename the RepositoryVersion model in Pulp 3 to
>>>>> Snapshot. The REST API would also change to use
>>>>> /api/v3/repositories/<uuid>/snapshot/
>>>>>
>>>>> The Snapshot name is a better description of what a repository version
>>>>> is and it is also much shorter in length.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180320/45df7824/attachment.htm>