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

Michael DeHaan mdehaan at redhat.com
Fri Sep 12 20:35:37 UTC 2008

Mairin Duffy wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> 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?
> I think I said this earlier, but honestly I don't know if it is or 
> isn't a good idea. I leave this up to the folks doing the 
> implementation, and if Michael is planning to do the implementation of 
> pulp in cobbler, I am all the more happy to see something that 
> actually works getting done. :)
> What I am worried about is how, at least it appears to me, the design 
> work and user interface ideas are getting pushed off to the side as 
> something different / not a part of this.
> But we could be arguing in circles saying the same thing but using 
> inconsistent terminology. I mean, I think the way Michael is spinning 
> it is that he doesn't care about UI, he just cares about code that 
> works. That's fair enough although I also thinks that limits the reach 
> of the actual code, and I do think that having a UI for this stuff is 
> important and it was always a part of the original vision as it was 
> something that a lot of people specifically said they needed. So 
> Michael has been posing that the UI should be a part of Spacewalk, and 
> not cobbler.

What I am saying is I would leave it up to you and others to design the 
UI,  as that is not my area of expertise.

I would LOVE to have a better CobblerWeb, so if the features in Pulp 
could be added to CobblerWeb and make it not suck as much as it 
(CobblerWeb) does now, that's awesome.
I just want to make sure it works for installation too, so I can look 
after existing use cases.

The summary is -- Cobbler is a good codebase to start from, let's get 
going and start Pulp there today, and forget the names "Cobbler" and 
"Pulp" as I don't find them signficant, I care about the users.

> Now, that is I think the one piece I'm struggling with. The entire 
> point of pulp was to do the core repo management bits of spacewalk 
> right. We had determined quite some time ago that it would be better 
> to do that with a clean slate than to try to clean up what is already 
> in spacewalk, because to be fair I think in the past four years we've 
> been TRYING to do that in spacewalk but have not made much but very 
> small incremental improvements. I think, at least at some point, that 
> myself and others had the feeling that we wanted to break it out into 
> a different project so we could have the freedom and space to make the 
> kinds of changes and innovations we needed to make WITHOUT risking the 
> core functionality of spacewalk.
> So now I feel like we've come back in a circle, and what has proven to 
> be a losing strategy (fixing what's already in spacewalk) is again 
> back on the table.
> Does that make more sense, put that way?
>> 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.
> Sans UI. :(

I do not intend to imply that.   I'm saying that "*I*" don't have a 
vested interest in the UI direction and am willing to let it goes mostly 
where it goes.

I would love to see contributions made to make CobblerWeb be that.  It 
may take a lot of work, but we have a starting point.

>> am I really offbase here?
> I don't think so and thanks for the fresh perspective. I think you 
> helped me realized that my main issue is with the UI bits 'living' in 
> spacewalk, because I've been there for, again, four years trying to 
> make that happen!
> ~m

More information about the Pulp-list mailing list