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

Tue Mar 5 14:41:13 UTC 2019

I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc notes
in, I don't see it as a problem.

Matt P.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:

> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting for
> Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern to my
> knowledge.
>
> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david pointed
> out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the least
> invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us feedback that
> the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I agree with his
> observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future proofed solution. I
> would argue that Option 2 is the  "least invasive" in the short term
> because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived (ironically for
> the same reasons you noted.)
>
> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you suggest
> any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
> there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
> clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
> this.)
>
> -Robin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring <bherring at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on
>> Pulp3?
>>
>> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems strange
>> to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and should be
>> making minimal changes.
>>
>> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2 would
>> have on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3,
>> doesn't it  make more sense to make those changes there when the product
>> has yet to be launched?
>>
>> BRIAN HERRING
>>
>> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE
>>
>> Red Hat
>>
>> <https://www.redhat.com/>
>>
>> 100 East Davie Street
>>
>> Raleigh, NC, 27601
>>
>> bherring at redhat.com    M: +19193238427     IM: bherring
>> <https://red.ht/sig>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom <kersom at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause impacts
>>> that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we will
>>> spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less
>>> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in
>>>> addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the
>>>> hyphen change.
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.
>>>>
>>>> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree with
>>>> @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic, so
>>>> I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
>>>> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names in
>>>> pulp2 ourselves).
>>>>
>>>> --Dana
>>>>
>>>> Dana Walker
>>>>
>>>> Associate Software Engineer
>>>>
>>>> Red Hat
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>> <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190305/07bd1c7c/attachment.htm>