[Pulp-list] Handling Uploads to repos with feed

[Todd B. Sanders]

  On 10/11/2010 01:20 PM, Jeff Ortel wrote:
>
>
> On 10/11/2010 10:17 AM, Pradeep Kilambi wrote:
>> Should we allow the case where, user creates a repo with a feed, syncs
>> down the content and then tries to upload additional content to the same
>> repo?
>>
>> Pros:
>>
>> * A user probably will have an easy time adding custom content to their
>> repos without having to create new repos
>>
>> Cons:
>>
>> * We need to regenerate metadata for the repo. Today we get the metadata
>> for repos with feed directly from the feed.
>> * Will need to worry about what version of RHEL/Fedora pulp is running
>> on for compatible yum metadata.
>> * For Red Hat repos, we probably dont want to allow this anyway. So
>> we'll need some extra rules to bypass this.
>>
>> Overall seems like keeping uploads separate from feed repos is cleaner.
>> User can always create a new repo, upload content and subscribe to both
>> repos to get that additional content.
>
> Agreed, we should keep them separate.
>
> Also, we discussed (in imanage) supporting repos which extend other 
> repos.  If we still intend to do this, then users can easily create a 
> repo with no feed that extends a repo that does have a feed.  This 
> mitigates the need to subscribe to both repos.

Yes, we are supporting this....cloning repos.  
https://fedorahosted.org/pulp/wiki/RepositoryCloning

-Todd
>
>>
>> Lemme know your feedback.
>>
>> ~ Prad
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-list mailing list
>> Pulp-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20101011/33dbbfd7/attachment.htm>