[Pulp-list] Handling Uploads to repos with feed

[Jeff Ortel]

On 10/11/2010 02:41 PM, Jason L Connor wrote:
> 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

-1.  I agree w/ Todd.  Not sure the flexibility is worth the complexity.  Plus, when you 
add GPG keys, this gets real weird.  Seems like having a powerful way of managing 
subscriptions to repo(s) is better.  That way repos have a single feed but it's painless 
for users to subscribe systems to multiple repos.  So, in the end, users have the same 
flexibility.

>   * allow package upload to all repositories

I'm fine either way on this.

>   * allow admin to pull content from one or more of the defined feeds

Nope, see above.

>   * should probably change the semantics of 'sync' to 'pull' (or
> something similar)

+1

>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5126 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20101012/2f9e64f2/attachment.p7s>