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

[Austin Macdonald]

There is some additional work to be done with the installer
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4187#note-3

I've created a new story for the installer to allow a user to override the
default and specify whatever name they choose for each component.
https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 12:32 PM Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/b70b0d19/attachment.htm>