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

Daniel Alley dalley at redhat.com
Wed Mar 20 18:09:25 UTC 2019 

+1

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 1:11 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on
> the naming of the services.
>
> To summarize the thread, our options:
>
>    - Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>       - didn't meet any support
>       - let's drop this option
>       - Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>       - got support from the majority
>       - some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
>       this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed and they have
>       enough time to test it for pulp2
>       - l see an agreement here, let's do it.
>       - Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names
>    for Pulp3 services
>       - barely discussed
>       - I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names
>
> Conclusion for Pulp2:  everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2. Details
> will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I misinterpreted
> any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change the names in
> pulp2.
>
> To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
> vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names.  *Vote is open till Friday,
> March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
> Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
> (reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
> decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
> The current ones are:
>
>    - pulp-resource-manager
>    - pulp-worker
>    - pulp-content-app
>
>
> I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.
>
> Thank you,
> Tanya
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha <brocha at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.”
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190320/4d91342c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list