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

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

Hi All,

I figure I'll weigh in with my 2ยข.

I did initially like the idea of keeping repositories that allow package
upload separate from repositories with feeds. This is mighty tempting
given its simplicity.

However, after reading all the arguments, Mike, Jeff, and John have had
some really good points. If we do not treat feeds as authoritative, and
as simply a batch source for packages, I think this introduces much
greater flexibility in the pulp management model than we had before.

I think I'd like to see us adopt this non-authoritative view. We should:
 * allow a repository to define more than one feed
 * allow package upload to all repositories
 * allow admin to pull content from one or more of the defined feeds
 * should probably change the semantics of 'sync' to 'pull' (or
something similar)

I like this model because it's actually a super-set of the functionality
we now offer and doesn't (theoretically) sound like it's a prohibitive
amount of work to get it going.

Jason L Connor
Software Engineer
Systems Management and Cloud Enablement
Red Hat, Inc.
RHCT #605010081634021
Freenode: linear

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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