[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 03:41 PM, Jason L Connor wrote:
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
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.

 * 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.
 * 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

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