[Pulp-dev] Pulp 2 and 3 Service Name Clashes
Tatiana Tereshchenko
ttereshc at redhat.com
Wed Mar 20 17:10:16 UTC 2019
Hi everyone,
We are approaching RC for pulpcore and we need to decide before that on the
naming of the services.
To summarize the thread, our options:
- Option #1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
- didn't meet any support
- let's drop this option
- Option #2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
- got support from the majority
- some QE guys had concerns, and after some discussion outside of
this list they are not against this option if it's not rushed
and they have
enough time to test it for pulp2
- l see an agreement here, let's do it.
- Option #3: Don't include version but change significantly names for
Pulp3 services
- barely discussed
- I suggest to vote if we are ok with our current names
Conclusion for Pulp2: everyone agreed on changing names in pulp2. Details
will no longer be discussed in this thread. Speak out if I misinterpreted
any opinions or if you disagree with the decision to change the names in
pulp2.
To close this thread so all the options are covered, I'd like to open a
vote if we still want to change Pulp3 names. *Vote is open till Friday,
March 22, 23:59:59 GMT.*
Please, share if you'd like to change service names in Pulp3 or not
(reminder: pulp2 service names will be changed anyway). If changing, we can
decide on the redmine ticket which name to pick.
The current ones are:
- pulp-resource-manager
- pulp-worker
- pulp-content-app
I'm +1 to keep the current ones in Pulp3.
Thank you,
Tanya
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 AM Bruno Rocha <brocha at redhat.com> wrote:
> I am ok with Option 2, my view is that it is easy to change it on Pulp2 as
> we hope it to enter in a maintenance "deprecated" mode in next few years :)
> also enforce users to upgrade 2 codebase before jumping to 3 is a plus.
>
> But if we are going with Option 3 maybe we can follow the same pattern as
> we are following for the repositories and then add `core` suffix.
>
> pulpcore-resource-manager
> pulpcore-worker
> pulpcore-content-app
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:41 PM Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought of a third option I'll throw out there aimed it reducing the
>> confusion through complete name changes of the services in Pulp 3. The
>> problem today is Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 have a 'resource-manager' and thus only
>> differentiate them via underscores and hyphens. Same with workers. Option 3
>> would be to change the naming of pulp-resource-manager and pulp-worker to
>> entirely new nomenclature within Pulp 3+. For example:
>>
>> * pulp-resource-manager becomes pulp-task-manager, pulp-tasking-manager,
>> pulp-queue-manager, pulp-arborist, arborist
>> * pulp-worker becomes pulp-task-runner, pulp-task-worker,
>> pulp-async-worker, pulp-tasking-worker, pulp-seedling
>>
>> This option still requires developers and operates with both to remember
>> which corresponds to which version of Pulp but makes it more obvious given
>> the complete naming difference than remembering which is the hyphen and
>> which is the underscore release.
>>
>> Let the bike shedding begin!
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:50 AM Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My key with proposal with Option 2 is to set Pulp 3+ up to be the future
>>> without carrying any baggage. Let's put the baggage on the older bits and
>>> keep it there and leave the future as wide open as possible for Pulp 3+.
>>>
>>> As I am spending time looking at deploying Pulp 3 alongside Pulp 2 in a
>>> Katello environment, I'd like to get this change implemented as soon as
>>> possible. This is mostly an operational change and should have a minimal
>>> impact.
>>>
>>> is my next step to file a Redmine issue against Pulp 2?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:15 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>> ttereshc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 to option 2, rename of Pulp2 services.
>>>> It's a low risk change for Pulp2, in my opinion, and clear distinction
>>>> of legacy version.
>>>> I also agree with all the mentioned reasons to keep Pulp3 ones
>>>> unchanged and more importantly without version in the name.
>>>> -0 to make names configurable.
>>>>
>>>> Tanya
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 PM Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 to rename Pulp2 services. This way we would ensure that the users
>>>>> have upgraded to a minimal version of Pulp 2 before upgrading to Pulp 3.
>>>>> As a suggestion i would not make this change with the next Pulp2 release
>>>>> but whenever we'd be able to tell for sure that this Pulp2.Y version is the
>>>>> version we are supporting the upgrade from.
>>>>> +1 on Eric's reasoning about being more strict and allow less
>>>>> variation in naming conventions.
>>>>> +1 on Eric's point about if renaming Pulp3 services then this will
>>>>> lock services names to Pulp version.
>>>>>
>>>>> @dana eventually in the discussion on the issue we decided to make
>>>>> only the hyphens change.
>>>>> @asmacdo <amacdona at redhat.com> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4497 i
>>>>> think this is a dupe of https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4429
>>>>>
>>>>> --------
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ina Panova
>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>>>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:44 PM Matt Pusateri <mpusater at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like Option2, as long as we do it with and upgrade and we put Doc
>>>>>> notes in, I don't see it as a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt P.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:48 AM Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To clarify, regarding @dana's comment - I wasn't necessarily voting
>>>>>>> for Option 1. Just pointing out the downside to option 2 wasn't a concern
>>>>>>> to my knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @bherring - we have made changes to pulp 3 service names as @david
>>>>>>> pointed out. I do agree that making changes to pulp3 names seems to be the
>>>>>>> least invasive in the short term at first glance. Eric has given us
>>>>>>> feedback that the previous name change was not distinct enough. However I
>>>>>>> agree with his observation that specifying "3" won't be a great future
>>>>>>> proofed solution. I would argue that Option 2 is the "least invasive" in
>>>>>>> the short term because the lasting impacts would be the most short lived
>>>>>>> (ironically for the same reasons you noted.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @kersom & @bherring - given your concerns about Option 2, can you
>>>>>>> suggest any variations/names for Option 1 that addresses the concern about
>>>>>>> longevity of the solution? Do you share Eric's concern regarding Austin's
>>>>>>> proposal to allow a user to specify? I agree with Eric's concern as I'd
>>>>>>> prefer that the naming be set to simplify debugging real life issues if
>>>>>>> there isn't a clear benefit to allowing this to be user specified (to be
>>>>>>> clear a -0 on Austin's suggestion - would like to hear more thoughts on
>>>>>>> this.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Robin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:19 AM Brian Herring <bherring at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is one of our goals is to move all possible resources to working on
>>>>>>>> Pulp3?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If so, I am going to agree with Kersom on the basis that it seems
>>>>>>>> strange to make changes to a product we are attempting to sunset and should
>>>>>>>> be making minimal changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we know all the impacts that changing service names in Pulp2
>>>>>>>> would have on Pulp2 yet? If we have and are still making changes to Pulp3,
>>>>>>>> doesn't it make more sense to make those changes there when the product
>>>>>>>> has yet to be launched?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BRIAN HERRING
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> QUALITY ENGINEER - PULP QE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.redhat.com/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 100 East Davie Street
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Raleigh, NC, 27601
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bherring at redhat.com M: +19193238427 IM: bherring
>>>>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:44 PM Kersom <kersom at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not think we should names in Pulp 2. Since this can cause
>>>>>>>>> impacts that we do not know. This will increase the amount of time that we
>>>>>>>>> will spend working on Pulp 2, changing, fixing, testing. At this point less
>>>>>>>>> changes in Pulp 2 is what I think we should do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:10 PM Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I understand the discussion on 4497, it was to be hyphens *in
>>>>>>>>>> addition to* a name change, but you're right @ehelms that I only see the
>>>>>>>>>> hyphen change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm +1 on @rchan's suggestion that the change take place in pulp2.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also given the migration and complexities with support, I agree
>>>>>>>>>> with @ehelms that custom configuration of these names would be problematic,
>>>>>>>>>> so I'm -0 on this unless we have a compelling user story for needing the
>>>>>>>>>> customizability (assuming we are making the change to the service names in
>>>>>>>>>> pulp2 ourselves).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Dana
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dana Walker
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Associate Software Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with @rchan that we will require users to upgrade to a
>>>>>>>>>>> minimal version of Pulp 2 before they can upgrade to Pulp 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We should just rename Pulp 2 services in a future release of
>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:31 AM Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Howdy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In some migration of Pulp 2 to Pulp 3 cases, both will need to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be ran side-by-side on the same box. Given that pulp workers and pulp
>>>>>>>>>>>> resource manager are the same concept in both, this leads to their systemd
>>>>>>>>>>>> resources being named the same (or in today's case so slightly different
>>>>>>>>>>>> enough you can't tell them apart).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose a change to the service names to facilitate
>>>>>>>>>>>> this situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Option 1: Include Pulp version in Pulp 3 services
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Example: pulp3-resource-manager
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro: Explicit naming and understanding of new services.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Con: This locks services names to Pulp version, which will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> odd with semantic versioning if 4 or 5 comes along.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Option 2: Re-name Pulp 2 services to pulp2-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Example: pulp2-resource-manager
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pro: Explicitly identifies pulp2 services, easy to retro-fit by
>>>>>>>>>>>> users onto their setups or through RPM releases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Con: Requires users to have upgraded to at least a particular
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp2 version to migrate to Pulp 3 (this may be required anyway).
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> Bruno Rocha
> Senior Quality Engineer - Red Hat - Pulp Project
> irc: rochacbruno
> “Progress is the realization of utopia.”
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190320/ee3dfbd8/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list