[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore RC3 Updates and Planning

Mon Jul 1 14:46:27 UTC 2019

After some off-list discussion, it sounds like we want a new state, and
that new state shouldn't be called ON_QA. Would people rather:

a) introduce a new state now? What would it be called?
b) use CLOSED - CURRENT RELEASE for now, and revisit the state addition as
we get closer to GA?

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:26 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> Fixing this would improve our process, so I want to do something. I get
> stuck on the name ON_QA though. The Pulp3 release process is so different
> from the Pulp2 one, the label doesn't make as much sense to me for Pulp3.
> Is marking them as CLOSED - CURRENT RELEASE an option? Or maybe introducing
> a new label called PRE-RELEASE? For now we could use CURRENT RELEASE as a
> simple option until we get into the GA.
>
> What do you think?
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 9:32 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I noticed in redmine that it's impossible to track which issues have been
>> released in an RC vs what has been completed but not yet released. In both
>> cases, the status of these issues is MODIFIED. In Pulp 2, we set the status
>> to ON_QA when changes have been released in a beta[0]. I wonder if it would
>> make sense to set Pulp 3 issues to ON_QA once they have been released with
>> an RC? Would it make sense to start this practice with RC3?
>>
>> [0]
>> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_2_Release_Planning#Beta-Announcing
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:14 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The RC3 has several items on its blockers list [0], so we will not be
>>> releasing on Monday the 24th. The plan is to release when either the
>>> blockers are all resolved or on Friday the 28th, whichever comes first. Any
>>> remaining blockers will go onto an RC4 blockers list.
>>>
>>> # Plugin Updates Required
>>> One new issue #4990 [1] discussed today during open floor will require a
>>> small-but-necessary change for any plugin that implements on-demand
>>> policy='streamed' or policy='on_demand'. Specifically you'll need to
>>> override the 'policy' field on your detail Remote's serializer to allow for
>>> those values. #4990 will include these docs (likely done Mon/Tues), but I
>>> wanted to give a heads up. Without this change RC3 will break lazy for your
>>> users because they won't be able to make the Remote.
>>>
>>> Any feedback or ideas are welcome (either on list or off).
>>>
>>> [0]: https://etherpad.net/p/pulpcore_rc3_blocker_list
>>> [1]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4990
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Next Thursday will be 1-month since the pulpcore and pulpcore-plugin
>>>> rc2 releases, so it's time to start coordinating rc3. Please give feedback
>>>> on any aspect here that could be improved. Feedback and changes are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> # rc3 timeline and blockers
>>>> I'm proposing June 24th as the rc3 release date. If there is some issue
>>>> you want to block pulpcore or pulpcore-plugin's rc3 release please add the
>>>> Redmine link onto this blockers etherpad:
>>>> https://etherpad.net/p/pulpcore_rc3_blocker_list
>>>>
>>>> # stable, committed migrations
>>>> Based on feedback with RC3 pulpcore and pulpcore-plugin will start
>>>> committing migrations and not modifying/rebasing them. We are asking plugin
>>>> writers to do the same. This will make consuming new release candidates
>>>> easier. It does not mean we are committing that a user could upgrade a RC
>>>> system to a GA system.
>>>>
>>>> # release notes
>>>> If you want the rc3 release notes to reflect a piece of work that does
>>>> not have an entry in the CHANGES directory, you can still add them. Put
>>>> your entries in the CHANGES directory. This should be true of your core and
>>>> also plugins who have adopted the towncrier tooling for release notes.
>>>>
>>>> # version in source
>>>> Users are becoming confused in the /status/ API about what bits they
>>>> have with source checkouts. To resolve this pulpcore and pulpcore-plugin
>>>> will contain the nextVersion.dev as its version going forward. So today
>>>> we're applying versions 3.0.0rc3.dev and 0.1.0rc3.dev to pulpcore and
>>>> pulpcore-plugin in source control respectively. We are asking plugin
>>>> writers to also adopt this approach. On release day we will will drop the
>>>> .dev, and then increment it to 3.0.0rc4.dev, etc.
>>>>
>>>> # releasing rc3 compatible plugins
>>>> I don't believe rc3 has any breaking changes in the plugin API
>>>> requiring significant updates. For your users to use the RC3, you'll need
>>>> to ensure your plugin's setup.py will allow that newer version to be
>>>> installer. Please reach out on-list or on IRC if you want any help with
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> # exclusively importing from pulpcore.plugin
>>>> Please update your plugins to import from pulpcore.plugin exclusively.
>>>> Any import that imports from another package underneath pulpcore is not
>>>> part of the plugin API. For example imports 'from pulpcore.app.models
>>>> import X' should become 'from pulpcore.plugin.models import X'. this is
>>>> important to ensure we've got all the necessary objects plugins use
>>>> available via the plugin API.
>>>>
>>>> # When is GA?
>>>> There are issues being discovered by Katello as they integrate against
>>>> Pulp3. These usability issues also affect general Pulp users. It's nothing
>>>> epic, but the changes do produce small backwards incompatible changes.
>>>> We'll have more confidence once there are no open Katello integration
>>>> blockers. You can see that list here:  https://tinyurl.com/y395d4gn
>>>>
>>>> Also the migration tooling plan is coming along very nicely, but going
>>>> to GA requires that work to have progressed further also (I feel). GA-ing
>>>> Pulp3 and then realizing we can't migrate pulp2 content effectively into it
>>>> would be good to avoid.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, the RPM plugin, the mainstay of Pulp2's usage, has a few
>>>> significant features to develop which could produce some not-insignificant
>>>> changes in core. One GA perspective is to wait on rpm to make those feature
>>>> and for katello to integrate those too to have full confidence Pulp3 is
>>>> ready for Katello. FWIW, those efforts are underway already.
>>>>
>>>> # Feedback
>>>> Please send it any way you feel comfortable. If you feel we're not
>>>> doing something right please tell us!
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20190701/6e50e6cf/attachment.htm>