[Pulp-dev] Questions around Pulp 3.0 RC release

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Fri Sep 14 16:02:14 UTC 2018

Here is what makes sense to me. Let's have Pulp claim official support for
any distro that we have CI for (Travis). This ensures every pull request
change and nightlies are tested and provable on all supported distros. I
believe support is about provable testing so without CI we can't ensure it
in an ongoing way otherwise. Additionally though, we should say that Pulp
will likely run anywhere that has the Python 3.6 runtime and has all
necessary dependencies, which likely includes MacOS, Debian, etc. From a
practical perspective Pulp likely will run well on all these distros, so
even though we wouldn't claim formal support, our users probably aren't
limited much in-practice.

The only strange thing with ^ approach is that currently Travis only tests
on Ubuntu so we would not be able to claim additional support until we
started testing other distros in containers on Travis (totally do-able)
[0]. I'm ok w/ that though.

What do you all think?

[0]: https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/multi-os/

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:52 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> Our last Pulp 3.0 planning ended a bit early a few weeks ago and there
> were a few outstanding questions that I would like to bring up on list for
> discussion and get some feedback.
> The first is around which OSes we are supporting and what will support
> include (testing on the OS, fixing platform-specific bugs, etc). We
> identified CentOS and Fedora as having official support. Then we also said
> we would support MacOS, Debian, and Ubuntu. Some confirmation and
> clarification on which OSes we are supporting and what support will mean
> would be good. Does anyone have any thoughts?
> Secondly, I just wanted to confirm that for the RC, we are planning on
> providing only Python packages via PyPI. I imagine we’ll work on providing
> other packaging formats like RPMs after the RC but before the GA.
> Lastly, there were some questions around what level of documentation we’re
> planning on having for the release. I’m not sure of a good way to address
> this and am looking for feedback.
> Thanks.
> David
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180914/92afdc67/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list