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

David Davis daviddavis at redhat.com
Wed Mar 20 18:12:31 UTC 2019 

+1 to option 2.

David


On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

> +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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190320/04dd3826/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list