[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore RC3 Updates and Planning

Thu Jun 27 14:26:00 UTC 2019

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/20190627/e0ae666c/attachment.htm>