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

[Dennis Kliban]

I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to  a minimal
version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3.

We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of Pulp 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).
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190304/7fdd0352/attachment.htm>