[Pulp-dev] Questions around Pulp 3.0 RC release
David Davis
daviddavis at redhat.com
Thu Sep 20 11:45:36 UTC 2018
The initial RC will be distributed via PyPI only. The plan is to work on
RPM packaging (and maybe debian/Ubuntu?) between the RC and the GA. I think
your idea makes sense though once we ship OS-specific packaging.
David
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:38 AM Bryan Kearney <bkearney at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180920/0722d633/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list