[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore RC3 Updates and Planning

Tue Jul 2 14:32:25 UTC 2019

I agree, it's fine to do nothing until the state of the redmine issue is
critical for Pulp 3 release process.

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 3:47 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190702/442520d9/attachment.htm>