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

Michael DeHaan mdehaan at redhat.com
Fri Sep 12 20:19:37 UTC 2008

Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 15:56 -0400, Mairin Duffy wrote:
>>> 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.
> I've been following this thread and trying to make sure I understand
> where the sides of this discussion are coming from.
> After reading everything it seems like something isn't being said which
> might be fairly useful to say. 
> Before I say it though I'd like to note that I don't have a dog in this
> fight. :)
> It seems like cobbler has functioning code and a good-sized userbase.
> Active development. Pulp otoh has some ideas and some structure but not
> a lot of functioning code to backup those ideas. It seems like Michael
> is suggesting we take the feature set that pulp wants to achieve and
> implement it as a mode/interface/etc of cobbler. Essentially, folding
> pulp into cobbler.
> I'll be honest it sounds like a fair idea. There's going to be a fair
> bit of overlapping code b/t pulp and cobbler anyway - and it would get
> more exposure to the feature ideas from pulp if people could get to them
> in cobbler. Since I know of many, many, many existing cobbler installs.
> While I appreciate it not mattering what code stuff lives in - from a
> user and 'marketing' standpoint it does matter.
> If I've already got cobbler setup I want to see the new bits  added
> there not have to setup something somewhat overlapping but different.
> So, to encourage and expand the userbase that both projects  are
> ultimately targeting. Why not join forces, converge under the cobbler
> code base and scm and move up from there?
> If I dare say it - it sure seems like good synergy! :)
> But in all seriousness it does seem like a good place to collaborate
> well that helps get pulp's ideas into production and helps the existing
> users of cobbler.
> am I really offbase here?
> -sv

I think this is exactly what I was saying,  and more clearly said.


More information about the Pulp-list mailing list