[Pulp-dev] Consolidating plugin listing on pulpproject.org for user clarity?
bmbouter at redhat.com
Tue May 19 14:04:48 UTC 2020
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 6:00 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
> Hi Brian,
> I agree with the problems identified.
> I'm concerned that the same plugins have a different set of features
> in Pulp 2 and Pulp 3, e.g, pulp_rpm. Having it just marked as compatible
> with both Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 might create an assumption that the same
> features are available for both Pulp 2 and Pulp 3.
> Some plugins are separated or renamed, it's hard to mark them compatible
> or not, e.g. Pulp 3 pulp_file should be marked as a part of Pulp 2
> pulp_rpm? Pulp 2 pulp_docker - a part of pulp_container in Pulp 3?
> I wonder if we should keep pulp 2 and pulp 3 plugins separate, maybe on
> the same page but not in the same table?
> Alternatively, many footnotes with clarifications might help.
Thanks for sharing this perspective, I agree with the concerns and the
ideas to resolve.
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:37 PM Brian Bouterse <bmbouter at redhat.com>
>> I'm sending via pulp-dev for more visibility, but I wanted to see what
>> you think specifically. Recently a user gave us feedback via an issue on
>> Pulp 3 pain points for usage . A lot of it is code and docs, and we're
>> working to address those, but the last bullet says:
>> "On the project page you tells that Pulp can manage plainty of repo type,
>> but in fact if you take a fresh version only few plugins are working. Is
>> there at least a compatibility/status matrix explaining that?"
>> There are two issues we identified at the installer meeting. 1) The
>> homepage claims one set of plugins that are pulp2 compatible but doesn't
>> clearly state they are for pulp two.2) the pulp3 plugin table is not on the
>> home page.
>> What do you think about consolidating the "plugin list" on the homepage
>> and the pulp3 plugins page into one table with two new columns "Pulp 2
>> compatible" and "Pulp 3 compatible" with X's or check mark icons in the
>> cells where that compatibility exists?
>> What do others think also?
>> : https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6658
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev