[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