[Pulp-dev] Questions around Pulp 3.0 RC release

Kersom kersom at redhat.com
Wed Sep 19 20:03:00 UTC 2018

Containers are a possible solution to add more OS's to the matrix.[0]

However, I think containers do not support SELinux. Then we will not be
able to test any feature/issue related to SELinux.

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

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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?
> Thanks,
> --Dana
> Dana Walker
> Associate Software Engineer
> Red Hat
> <https://www.redhat.com>
> <https://red.ht/sig>
> 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.
>>> David
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:02 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180919/00857b0e/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list