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

Wed Mar 20 22:23:36 UTC 2019

+1 to keep current pulp3 service names
+1 to rename pulp2 service names

Thank you for putting this email together, very clear and straight to the
point!

ср, 20 мар. 2019 г., 19:13 David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>:

> +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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190320/780bb3cf/attachment.htm>