[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore RC3 Updates and Planning

Ina Panova ipanova at redhat.com
Wed Jul 3 11:45:42 UTC 2019

+1 to option C


Ina Panova
Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.

"Do not go where the path may lead,
 go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:42 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190703/c0a54687/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list