[Pulp-dev] 3.1 GA plan -- Jan 30th

[Brian Bouterse]

With 3.1 being a time-based release I put the 3.1 label on 5567, 5964,
5968, and 5286. Let's continue to look at the 3.1 items to see how we want
to spend our effort https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/issues?query_id=145

I also added 5974 to 3.1 so we can look at that as well.


On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:18 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to considering #5567 and #5964 for 3.1.
>

> #5968 is mostly done. This seems like a nice thing to wrap up for 3.1.
> #5286 would be another nice-to-have for 3.1 as well.
>
> AFAIK, we don't have a story for a universal repo list.
>
> David
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 3:16 PM Simon Baatz <gmbnomis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:10:34PM -0500, Brian Bouterse wrote:
>> >    David and I are coordinating the 3.1 pulpcore release. We are
>> proposing
>> >    we release 3.1 on Jan 30th, and have it be a time-based release.
>> >    Tentatively, we hope to release about a pulpcore y-release every
>> month
>> >    for the foreseeable feature. It's also worth noting that 3.1 could
>> >    bring breaking changes to the plugin API as the plugin API has not
>> yet
>> >    stabilized.
>> >    Currently the items we want to include are shown in the 3.1
>> milestone:
>> >    [1]https://pulp.plan.io/versions/73
>> >    Please email the list raising any issue your plugin needs, or a user
>> >    use case that you feel needs to be included in 3.1.
>> >    At the moment, the main user-visible features are around content
>> >    signing. To practically benefit users, plugins will need to integrate
>> >    against these content signing facilities. For example, metadata or
>> >    Artifact signing features in plugins.
>> >    Cheers,
>> >    Brian & David
>>
>> Who wants features when one can squash bugs?
>>
>> - Bring the repo_key uniqueness saga to a happy ending (hopefully):
>>   #5567 and #5964
>>
>> - This is a funny one: Filters for Publications (for real!): #5968
>>
>>
>> Possible Features (no must haves for 3.1, these are on my list of
>> issues to watch. I just want to ensure that they aren't excluded from
>> 3.1 just because we forgot about them):
>>
>> - When we switched to typed repos, we discussed about implementing a
>>   universal "list repos" endpoint. I can't find an issue though?
>>
>> - #5286 (option to handle 404s gracefully during sync)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20200114/7be39342/attachment.htm>