[Pulp-dev] Questions around Pulp 3.0 RC release
dawalker at redhat.com
Wed Sep 19 19:55:10 UTC 2018
I agree with Brian 100% that if we say something is officially supported,
we need to back that statement up, be that with Travis or some other level
of testing, or bugfix support, etc.
Looking at the multi-os docs for Travis that Brian linked to, it looks like
it's only two options, Linux or OSX, and as he said Linux currently just
means Ubuntu, and OSX may face some hurdles.
Are there other forms of testing we would be willing and able to use to be
able to officially back more OS's? I'd really like to see more broad
support. At the very least, yes, we can list that it should work on a
number of others and that we develop in Fedora, but certainly we can test
in more OS's to a level of confidence to count as official support, right?
As for documentation, David, what sort of questions have you been getting
about it? I mean, we have documentation. I know we can likely improve it,
or at least the visibility of it as a recent review suggested. Is there a
particular area of concern that we could address?
Associate Software Engineer
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
> I want to advocate we follow the policy even for Fedora. We can
> anecdotally say in the distribution docs that we use Fedora in our
> development environment and that we expect it to work there too.
> Without CI it's hard to know on an everyday basis which specific versions
> of a distribution are working. For instance with Fedora, even with dev
> environments, it's possible that we aren't booting into both F27 and F28
> often enough and Pulp break from a dependency change. With CI running for
> the supported OS's, we'll know almost as fast as our users do when there is
> an issue on a supported OS. I think this is part of the "supported OS"
> value proposition. It allows us to be very precise on exactly which
> versions are being continuously tested on, down to the specific versions.
> Other/more ideas are welcome.
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:19 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>> What about Fedora? We use it in our development environment so I think I
>> would feel comfortable claiming official support for it as well it’s not in
>> our CI environment.
>> Other than that, your proposal sounds good to me.
>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:02 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> 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)
>>> . I'm ok w/ that though.
>>> What do you all think?
>>> : https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/multi-os/
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:52 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>> 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.
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev