On 10/11/2010 03:41 PM, Jason L Connor wrote:
Why? This is gonna break the whole premise of exposing the repos on pulp similar to its source. Today if a repo has a feed from /content/fedora/13/ we serve it that way to clients from pulp. How do we expect to serve the same when we have multiple feeds? I dont see the point of having multiple feeds for a given repo when I can have three repos exposed the same way from pulp.Hi All, I figure I'll weigh in with my 2¢. 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
Again, I dont see any benefit of doing this. Do we have a proper use case to do this or are we just doing this because we can.
* allow admin to pull content from one or more of the defined feeds
Not sure what this means.
+1* 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._______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list redhat com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list