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

Wed Mar 28 13:11:38 UTC 2018

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to keep RepositoryVersion.
>
> I also do not like the fact that it is quite long, that's why i do like
> the Snapshot, but thinking more of what snapshot is - is something that
> *you* need to trigger and it is not triggered automatically.
> I'd say, we are working with repository versioning and not snapshots.
>
> Back to aptly, they use the term shapshot, which you need to manually
> create https://www.aptly.info/doc/aptly/snapshot/create/
>
>
I see two main benefits for using the term 'snapshot':

   - this term is not unique to Pulp so it is easier to explain to the user
   - this term is mush shorter in length
   - there is only one form of it vs 2 (repo version and repository version)

David, are you still a -1 on this?

>
>
> --------
> Regards,
>
> Ina Panova
> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>
> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Matthias Dellweg <dellweg at atix.de> wrote:
>
>> I guess, you meant 'RepositoryVersions' there. Maybe it is just a typo,
>> or maybe your subconciousness already adepted to this change. ;)
>>
>> I'm +1, because from the REST API or model view, you do not ask what
>> changed, but rather what is in that snapshot|version.
>> And since you are renaming all models of pulp3 atm, you are giving a
>> plugin maintainer a hard time, anyway. I think, it's now or never.
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:55:14 -0400
>> David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Herzliche Grüße aus München
>>
>> Matthias Dellweg
>> ______________________________________________________
>> Dr. Matthias M. Dellweg
>>
>> (Open Source Software Engineer)
>>
>> Tel: +49 (0)89 452 35 38-12
>> Fax: +49 (0)89 452 35 38-290
>> E-Mail: dellweg at atix.de
>>
>> ATIX - The Linux & Open Source Company
>>
>> ATIX Informationstechnologie und Consulting AG
>> Parkring 15
>> 85748 Garching bei München
>> www.atix.de
>>
>>
>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, Registernummer: HRB 168930
>> USt.-Id.: DE209485962
>> Vorstand: Thomas Merz (Vors.), Mark Hlawatschek
>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Dr. Martin Buss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180328/4d42c336/attachment.htm>