[Pulp-list] How about we just merge these core features into Cobbler?

Mairin Duffy duffy at redhat.com
Fri Sep 12 19:56:18 UTC 2008

Michael DeHaan wrote:
> Máirín Duffy wrote:
>> Michael DeHaan wrote:
>>> Maybe create some mockups to see what this might look like?
>> That's a pretty big project to take on. Unless you mean just making 
>> them 'look' like perspectives, for which there are already mockups on 
>> the pulp site to show that kind of framework.
> yeah I am not sure what the goal of this project is.  I was thinking if 
> you are still interested in some kind of new web tool for repos I 
> wondered what it might look like.  I've seen the existing stuff but 
> wasn't sure
> if you were talking about something different or not.

My devoting some time to go and mock it up right and go through the 
whole design process is pending whether or not there is actually 
interest in using the designs. Which is a bit of a chicken vs egg 
problem because perhaps there would be interest if there were mockups. 
Maybe when my plate is a little less full I will just go ahead and mock 
it up anyway. It's just that it's hard for me to justify spending the 
time it would take to produce a design for this instead of for other 
projects that have active development going on with a need for design 
work who can turn it around into an actual working project today.

Whine, whine. But I just want to make it clear that I'm all for action 
but unfortunately otherwise occupied. If there was great interest from a 
developer on making this happen, I would happily shift gears to working 
on it. I also think that probably having a properly documented design 
such as I'm envisioning might make some of the reasons for some of my 
hesitation towards having a single UI very clear.

Anyhow, hello out there! If you're a developer reading this and want to 
dig in, let's talk :)
> It seems there are two topics here, of which I am most interested in the 
> second
> (A)  Making a new web app, possibly to be included with and/or replace 
> parts of Spacewalk
> (B)  Adding some repo management features that Cobbler can't do yet ... 
> whether that be in cobbler or otherwise
Breaking it down this away upon further examination doesn't make sense 
to me. A is saying the new web app will possibly be included with or 
replace parts of Spacewalk essentially means it will be included with or 
replace parts of cobbler because cobbler is being added to spacewalk. B 
is saying that the pulp-like things sans interface should be added to 
cobbler, which is the same as adding them to spacewalk because cobbler 
is being added to spacewalk, except the entire idea of a UI is left out. 
So A appears to equal B, except B does not have a UI for repo 
management, or is hooking cobbler up to spacewalk's existing 'repo 
management' UI. The limitations of spacewalk's existing repo management 
UI and underlying system is the whole reason pulp was proposed in the 
first place. :)

I prefer to think about this in terms of user problems to solve, not 
project names / code bases / backends vs. UI.


More information about the Pulp-list mailing list