[Pulp-list] Decision: Handling Uploads to repos with feed

[Todd B. Sanders]

  Here is how I would like to proceed:

* We move forward with mmccune's proposal for a "--allow-uploads" flag 
on *all* repository objects.

* The flag will be set to *off* by default for repositories created with 
a feed;
    and *on* for default repositories created without a feed; as this is 
what is required to support the RHEL/Fedora use cases we know of today.

* For now, we will not expose the attribute (setting or getting) via our 
CLI tooling (client or admin); only in the data model.

* Attempts to modify the default values for this attribute will raise 
an  "unsupported" error condition.

* Single feed per repository maximum.

* In the future as time and focus permits (and future use cases become 
clearer), we could/will add support for the alternative states:
    * On for repository with feed
    * Off for repository without feed

-Todd


On 10/11/2010 11:17 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.
>
> Lemme know your feedback.
>
> ~ Prad
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list