[Pulp-list] Handling Uploads to repos with feed

[Jason L Connor]

Hi All,

I figure I'll weigh in with my 2¢.

I did initially like the idea of keeping repositories that allow package
upload separate from repositories with feeds. This is mighty tempting
given its simplicity.

However, after reading all the arguments, Mike, Jeff, and John have had
some really good points. If we do not treat feeds as authoritative, and
as simply a batch source for packages, I think this introduces much
greater flexibility in the pulp management model than we had before.

I think I'd like to see us adopt this non-authoritative view. We should:
 * allow a repository to define more than one feed
 * allow package upload to all repositories
 * allow admin to pull content from one or more of the defined feeds
 * should probably change the semantics of 'sync' to 'pull' (or
something similar)

I like this model because it's actually a super-set of the functionality
we now offer and doesn't (theoretically) sound like it's a prohibitive
amount of work to get it going.

-- 
Jason L Connor
Software Engineer
Systems Management and Cloud Enablement
Red Hat, Inc.
+1.919.890.8331
RHCT #605010081634021
Freenode: linear
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20101011/7a72ad55/attachment.sig>