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

Eric Helms ehelms at redhat.com
Wed Mar 6 14:50:48 UTC 2019


My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future
without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and
keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+.

As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
impact.

is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
wrote:

> +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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190306/4042cdc8/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list