[Pulp-dev] Questions around Pulp 3.0 RC release

Bryan Kearney bkearney at redhat.com
Thu Sep 20 11:37:47 UTC 2018

Do you plan to distribute rpms/.debs?

If so, instead of using the term supported you can instead deal with it
via how you distribute:

* Only generate native artifacts for the distros you test
* Generate pip/egg files and then it is up to the user to deploy wherever.

-- bk

On 9/19/18 4:06 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:55 PM Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com
> <mailto: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.
> That is right, but what we could do is have Travis be a loading
> environment for a docker container that is loaded from dockerhub. With
> that approach I think we can test Fedoras, CentOS, and maybe even RHEL
> on Travis. I know other people do this I can link to some examples if
> people want to look at it more closely. I think this is one reason why
> Travis doesn't offer more runtimes since you can get others through
> containers. OSX is special though because it can't be containerized so
> they have to offer that one. RQ can't run on Windows so we can't run
> there at all :(
> I think we should explore putting ^ CI in place before we take Pulp3
> after the 3.0 RC but before the GA.
>     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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
>                     https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>         _______________________________________________
>         Pulp-dev mailing list
>         Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto: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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180920/a067ea52/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list