[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 02:41 PM, Jason L Connor wrote:
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

-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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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