[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore RC3 Updates and Planning

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Tue Jul 2 13:46:15 UTC 2019


I think doing nothing for now makes sense. ON_QA doesn't seem to fit the
state of the issues and users can use the changelog for now.

David


On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:38 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> After some more IRC discussion here's another option.
>
> c) do nothing and if users want to know what is in the RC, look in the
> changelog. If users want to know what is in source, look in the CHANGES
> directory in master (which contains uncut changelog entries). The creation
> of the changelog deletes the CHANGES directory's files.
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:46 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/20190702/0b1d7a3a/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list