ggainey at redhat.com
Thu Feb 27 20:07:26 UTC 2020
Hey folks -
The import/export team has been having a discussion about naming. Currently
Pulp3 already has the concept Exporter. It's used for what I think of as
"pulp-to-human-user" usecases like "make this yum-repo available from my
webserver" and "use rsync to make this repository available on a different
system". It's important functionality, to be sure - but the name collides
with what we're designing right now.
The export/import process we're working on, can be thought of as
"pulp-to-pulp" - no human end-user should be harmed during the exercise of
this function. And it really is "export data from instance Foo and import
it into instance Bar". However, we collide, repeatedly, on the collision
between the two meanings for Export - which says to me that users will
collide even harder and more often.
The current Exporters are in tech-preview (I believe). What if we renamed
the current concept from 'Exporter' to 'Publisher'? One, that makes it
clearly not the same as the pulp-to-pulp import/export process. And two, I
feel like it matches what we're really going for with the
pulp-to-human-user case anyway.
David assures me that the actual coding effort to do this rename would be
low. It's my opinion that the amount of confusion that would be prevented
makes the reward high.
Anyone want to chime in? If nobody says anything, we're probably going to
do this - so get your objections in early and often! :)
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev