[Pulp-dev] Removing PublishedArtifact?

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Wed Sep 19 17:53:55 UTC 2018

Thank you for all this feedback. I'm convinced that we should leave
PublishedArtifact and PublishedMetadata as is w.r.t ticket #4020. I've
revised it as such.

For the plugin writer I'm working with, they do want to have the
ContentArtifact.relative_path be the final repository layout. So now the
scope of work for #4020 is only to extend the content app to search
ContentArtifact.relative_path before returning the 404 if no
PublishedArtifact or PublishedMetadata objects match for that publication.

What about doing that? Also I'm kind of hoping to deliver this code to the
plugin writer kind of soon. Thank you again for all the great input here
and on the input.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:59 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> I think that pulp_deb could maybe create its own association between
> publication and artifacts. The problem is that PublishedArtifacts is a
> one-size-fits-all solution that probably ought to be instead implemented in
> plugins that require some specialized way to join publications and
> artifacts.
> David
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Matthias Dellweg <dellweg at atix.de> wrote:
>> Not entierly sure, that this is related, but a while ago, we laid out a
>> road map for the pulp3_deb plugin [1]. It includes 8 different
>> publishers, that publish different metadata for the same repository
>> version. As far as i understand, that is exactly, what
>> PublishedArtifacts are for. If it were possible to just use ordinary
>> Artifacts and associate them with a Publication instead of a
>> RepositoryVersion it might be ok in that context.
>> Cheers, Matthias
>> [1] https://etherpad.net/p/pulp-deb-pulp3/timeslider#2902
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:45:15 -0400
>> Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > A plugin writer (@oleksander) pointed out to me that PublishedArtifact
>> > seems a bit out of place for his usage. I can see why he thinks that,
>> > and after thinking about it, Pulp does seem a bit over-complicated in
>> > this area. I've written [0] to describe the problem, promote
>> > discussion of this issue, and hopefully decide on a resolution.
>> >
>> > [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4020
>> >
>> > Discussion and collaboration is welcome!
>> >
>> > -Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180919/3dd06fa3/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list