On 10/11/2010 02:41 PM, Jason L Connor wrote:
Hi All, I figure I'll weigh in with my 2Â¢. 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
-1. I agree w/ Todd. Not sure the flexibility is worth the complexity. Plus, when you add GPG keys, this gets real weird. Seems like having a powerful way of managing subscriptions to repo(s) is better. That way repos have a single feed but it's painless for users to subscribe systems to multiple repos. So, in the end, users have the same flexibility.
* allow package upload to all repositories
I'm fine either way on this.
* allow admin to pull content from one or more of the defined feeds
Nope, see above.
* 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
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature