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

Thu Mar 7 00:38:07 UTC 2019

I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2 as
we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years :)
also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.

But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern as
we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.

pulpcore-resource-manager
pulpcore-worker
pulpcore-content-app

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>

-- 
Bruno Rocha
Senior Quality Engineer - Red Hat - Pulp Project
irc: rochacbruno
“Progress is the realization of utopia.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190306/7a755979/attachment.htm>