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

Wed Mar 6 22:40:50 UTC 2019

I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:

 * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager, pulp-tasking-manager,
pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
 * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling

This option still requires developers and operates with both to remember
which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more obvious given
the complete naming difference than remembering which is the hyphen and
which is the underscore release.

Let the bike shedding begin!

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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/bd9432e0/attachment.htm>