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

Tue Mar 5 16:15:15 UTC 2019

+1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction of
legacy version.
I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones unchanged
and more importantly without version in the name.
-0 to make names configurable.

Tanya

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users have
> upgraded to  a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3. As a
> suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release but
> whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the
> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less variation in
> naming conventions.
> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will lock
> services names to Pulp version.
>
> @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make only
> the hyphens change.
> @asmacdo <amacdona at redhat.com> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i think
> this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429
>
> --------
> Regards,
>
> Ina Panova
> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>
> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri <mpusater at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190305/1ed9c9bf/attachment.htm>