[Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes

Eric Helms ehelms at redhat.com
Mon Mar 4 17:31:26 UTC 2019


If I read the solution as hyphens vs underscores as implemented in
ansible-pulp3 today then yes, it's still very confusing which is which.

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019, 12:25 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> I agree with rchan and am thus leaning towards option 2.
>
> Just to be clear though, we renamed pulp 3’s services recently to avoid
> conflict[0] with pulp 2. However, it sounds like this solution isn’t good
> enough as it’s hard for users to identify which set of services go with
> which version of pulp?
>
> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4187
>
> David
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:55 AM Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> See comment below on option 2.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to be ran
>>> side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp resource
>>> manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd resources
>>> being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different enough you
>>> can't tell them apart).
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate this
>>> situation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>>
>>> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>>>
>>> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>>>
>>> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be odd with
>>> semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>>>
>>>
>>> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>>
>>> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>>>
>>> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by users
>>> onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>>>
>>> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular Pulp2
>>> version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>>>
>> [rchan] My expectation is that we will levy this requirement on
>> upgrades/migrations anyway, so I don't think this con applies for this
>> suggestion.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20190304/d5ef7ed9/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list