[Pulp-list] Pulp in production

[Brian Bouterse]

I generally recommend picking a recent x.y release and always staying 
current on its z stream updates (i.e 2.8.6). I also recommend upgrading 
y releases often because we are releasing smaller changes, more often 
now and new features come with y releases along with updates. Also, 
security updates usually land in the current y stream and maybe y-1, so 
staying current puts you in a good position to receive the latest fixes. 
We try to make the upgrades easy also.

Beta and release candidate testing helps everyone because issues 
discovered during someone's upgrade could have been found earlier. It 
also allows you to verify if the upcoming release will meet your needs 
too. Always have a new, non-production system when beta/rc testing. 
Note, we do not support upgrading a beta/rc install to newer beta, rc, 
or ga version.

Since Pulp 2.4.0, Pulp tries to adhere to semantic versioning [0] for 
it's API, CLI, and as much as possible, the plugin API. This means that 
if you are integrating or using against Pulp or its CLI, there should 
never be backwards incompatible changes on the 2.y line. At some point 
we are going to move to Pulp 3.0, but at least when you decide to 
upgrade to a new 2.y release, you know what you are getting.

[0]: semver.org

-Brian

On 07/21/2016 11:28 PM, Aaron Johnson wrote:
> Thank you for the response, we upgraded to pulp 2.8.6 today so we are
> hoping things will improve.
>
> Is there any response from the devs on the release strategy for pulp?
>
> On Jul 20, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Alejandro Cortina
> <alejandro.cortina2 at gmail.com <mailto:alejandro.cortina2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     we had the issues you mentioned with 2.8.3, updated to 2.8.4 and so
>     far (+/- 1 month I guess) is working smooth.
>
>     On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:57 AM, <acjohnson at pcdomain.com
>     <mailto:acjohnson at pcdomain.com>> wrote:
>
>         I am looking for recommendations on what release of Pulp is
>         recommended for production deployments.
>
>         We have been running Pulp 2.3 in production for the past year
>         and are currently building out new production infrastructure to
>         deploy our new production Pulp environment on top of.
>
>         We planned to deploy the latest stable release of Pulp which at
>         the time was Pulp version 2.8.3.
>
>         We have Pulp 2.8.3 running on the new infra and are currently
>         dealing with various pulp tasks hanging with State: Waiting
>         and Start Time: Unstarted
>
>         I've noticed that the Katello project has recently upgraded
>         their stable release (3.0 currently) to use Pulp 2.8.4 packages
>         located here:
>
>         https://fedorapeople.org/groups/katello/releases/yum/3.0/pulp/el7/x86_64/
>
>         And previously Pulp 2.6 was used as the stable packages for
>         Katello (skipping Pulp 2.7 altogether).
>
>         For production deployments is Pulp 2.8.x the recommended release
>         to use, or should people be deploying Pulp 2.9.x in prod, or
>         just skip Pulp 2.9.x and use for devel environments only?
>
>         Hopefully this question makes sense to you. It would be nice if
>         the Pulp project had some sort of LTS release (Long Term
>         Support) to help guide users to the most stable branch of
>         development.
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Pulp-list mailing list
>         Pulp-list at redhat.com <mailto: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
>