On 10/11/2010 12:55 PM, Mike McCune wrote:
On 10/11/2010 10:37 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote:On 10/11/2010 12:22 PM, Mike McCune wrote:On 10/11/2010 10:20 AM, Jeff Ortel wrote:On 10/11/2010 10:17 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.Agreed, we should keep them separate. Also, we discussed (in imanage) supporting repos which extend other repos. If we still intend to do this, then users can easily create a repo with no feed that extends a repo that does have a feed. This mitigates the need to subscribe to both repos.I still don't see why it is all that different than what we have now with the addition of the need to run createrepo --update after a sync like we do now after a package upload ... Is there something more than that?For me, preventing uploads to repos with feeds has nothing to do with the overhead of running 'createrepo --update' but instead has to do with preserving the integrity of repos with feeds. I think there is some expectation that repos with feeds are exactly synchronized with the feed (repo). Perhaps, my perspective of what the /feed/ represents is incorrect?good point .. to me a feed is just a way to get packages into a repo and uploads are another way. I don't think we said anywhere that by defining a feed for a repo we have a contract to ensure that the package content in the upstream is exactly the same as is on the pulp server. That said I do see where you are coming from and I expect some people do see repos with feeds as behaving this way. I just don't want to keep going down a path where we constrain pulp to work the way Red Hat releases and manages content. I still see the project as having the goal to be a generic software distribution/management tool and not something who's job is to enforce workflow. If users want to mix content into one repo by uploading packages from a local dir and feeding them in from an external source I think we should let them do that.
If we want to start putting rules, restrictions and policy around how content flows into a repo I think we should make it optional and configurable.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature