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

Wed Mar 28 13:57:21 UTC 2018

Thank you everyone for your feedback. I agree that snapshot carries some
connotations that are not congruent with the mental model we want to
present to our users. -1 from me also :)

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:35 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> I concur with @dalley. I read through the wikipedia article on snapshots
> in computer storage again and it just doesn’t seem to fit our model.
> Snapshots typically mean backups or archives and using them to describe the
> current state of the repository doesn’t make sense. As Ina says, a user
> should instead trigger a snapshot to create a copy/backup/archive of a
> repository’s content. Creating a new snapshot automatically by modifying
> the current state of the repo doesn’t make sense.
>
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> -0 to changing the name.  Shorter is good, but I do think the name is
>> misleading, and I disagree with the reasoning provided in the meeting the
>> other day that "snapshot is more self-explanatory" - which I don't believe
>> that it is.
>>
>> this term is not unique to Pulp so it is easier to explain to the user
>>
>>
>> I think Ina's point from the other day about what meaning other
>> developers - not affiliated with pulp - associate with the name "snapshot"
>> shouldn't be dismissed.  If we're reusing a term but attaching a meaning to
>> it that is not quite the same as what the average person would guess it
>> was, the information won't "stick" as well.
>>
>> Sure, there are Pulp concepts that have to be explained to the user in
>> any event, but we should still try to match their expectations as closely
>> as possible.
>>
>> And while I'd welcome data to the contrary, I don't think a user would
>> have a harder time understanding the concept of a "RepositoryVersion" than
>> they would a "Snapshot".  It's pure composition.  People are familiar with
>> repositories, people are familiar with versions.. I don't see a problem
>> there.
>>
>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180328/673d6abc/attachment.htm>