[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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



On 10/11/2010 02:03 PM, Jason Dobies wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.
This is a good distinction. If we treat feeds the way Mike is
suggesting, uploading a package into a repo isn't a huge issue.

If we're treating the feed as the authoritative source on packages in
that repo, then we have to take into account things like when the feed
previously indicated package X was in it but is no longer there. Do we
delete package X on pulp then?

If we do delete package X, I don't see how we could support uploaded
packages into a feed-backed repo. Otherwise, when we sync with the feed
it will notice the uploaded package was not in the recent sync with the
feed and delete it. And I'd really rather not go into the realm of
keeping track of packages that were uploaded v. those that came from the
feed.

So there's two questions here:
- - What do we want the feed to represent, simply a one way mechanism to
introduce packages into a repo (in which case we really should allow for
more than one feed per repo) or the feed acting as a more authority
figure who will keep the repo up to date with its knowledge of packages
(in which case we may need to implement remove functionality).

I'm not a fan of multiple feeds per repo. Its a different angle to the same upload problem we're discussing. Feed to me is an authority figure who will keep the repo up to date and I think John was working on removal functionality to keep the source in sync with pulp repos last sprint.

~ Prad
- - How does pulp currently act?

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.

Mike

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

- -- Jason Dobies
RHCE# 805008743336126
Freenode: jdob
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMs1F8AAoJEOMmcTqOSQHCc/gIAJeeJ8Q0IbcdnnvJhaAKwwhe
Mqw5o9xiXYQO9se7aFIGLKLzGazjLbTwXOoCK4A/LXFYjLT45v3nx1sS2vo3GQ/q
BKxiTOiDbcTG1hrEYM+FU77GntLew4PdRyDMbPBNr4yE1gmY8LoozV7L8/G7eyE9
1oYIL9UvYFMzEWkr/Om4hdc8uDhGjIxvQ3J8uii0832Qq/iLwYHSPrbzUA0o8sjJ
dq1elWrgL7QcAV9HTnQgSFxNcGmL3/8JW0YuCMz3f+RoNjj6R9HrnJFErEhZ88Pr
P88+s/mn1Yn2SWWnrT1wgz6LKyttJnqzAOOmeTG47FB+9BexRg2nGMfOFo14C3Q=
=aTxN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]