 | pulp-container | 22 Members |
| 3 Servers |
| pulp-container | 22 Members |
| 3 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 9 Apr 2024 | ||
 ggainey | hey gang - can somebody container-knowledgeable take a look at https://discourse.pulpproject.org/t/oserror-starting-path-not-found-pulp-content-while-creating-container/1185 ? | 12:15:06 |
 mpysik | https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/1530 - I've tested the backward compatibility and everything seems to be great, the user can still access the manifests created before the migration, and requesting them doesn't do any (side-effect) changes in the database | 12:48:15 |
| mpysik | I'll hop on call with Lubos on Thursday, and we will discuss the django manager command (manual migration in batches) and maybe some finishing touches (just code design choices/preferences) | 12:49:12 |
| mpysik | * https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/1530 - I've tested the backward compatibility and everything seems to be great, the user can still access the manifests created before the migration (data stored in artifact, data field is empty string), and requesting them doesn't do any (side-effect) changes in the database | 12:49:51 |
| mpysik | Feel free to review the PR, the functionality of the code shouldn't change anymore | 12:52:23 |
 ipanova | mpysik: nice! | 14:03:28 |
| ipanova | so the only piece that's left is the django-admin command? | 14:03:42 |
| 11 Apr 2024 | ||
| mpysik | In reply to @ipanova:matrix.orgyes | 08:09:02 |
 lmjachky | It appears like we are closer and closer to merging these significant changes: https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/1530, https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/1580. mpysik and hyagi are reviewing my suggestions right now. I wonder if we could push this forward today or tomorrow to get it merged and prepared for Katello (it seems like they are picking up a new pulp-container branch next week). Additional bug fixes (I can say there will be a ) will land into an upcoming Z-stream, as needed. I am planning to work this weekend to finalize the missing stuff and resolve potential merge conflicts. ipanova, any inputs on this "speedrun"? Is this against our policy? | 12:16:32 |
| lmjachky | * It appears like we are closer and closer to merging these significant changes: https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/1530, https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/1580. mpysik and hyagi are reviewing my suggestions right now. I wonder if we could push this forward today or tomorrow to get it merged and prepared for Katello (it seems like they are picking up a new pulp-container branch next week). Additional bug fixes (I can say there will be a few) will land into an upcoming Z-stream, as needed. I am planning to work this weekend to finalize the missing stuff and resolve potential merge conflicts. ipanova, any inputs on this "speedrun"? Is this against our policy? | 12:17:06 |
| ipanova | i am always in favor of thorough and high quality review that would have high chances to spot bugs right away rather then leaving them to be dealt with for later for few reasons:1) while doing bz investigation it is not always clear whether the issue is related to that area or not 2) you need to context switch and load again into the memory all details related to that codebase. While i understand you want to hit the window for katello branching try still focus on good PR review | 12:23:20 |
| lmjachky | Have anyone of you ever heard about this: https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/cache/#registry-cache ? | 13:53:52 |
| lmjachky | * Has anyone of you ever heard about this: https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/cache/#registry-cache ? | 13:54:03 |
| ipanova | i saw it in that issue filled by the user | 13:54:39 |
| ipanova | for the first time | 13:54:45 |
| lmjachky | same same | 13:55:38 |
| lmjachky | will need to review the documentation to see if the issue is really on our side or if we need to add additional functionality to Pulp | 14:00:14 |
| ipanova | the docs are not really verbose but i have a feeling they push just a manifest without blobs | 14:07:51 |
| ipanova | i left some questions on the issue | 14:14:26 |
| 12 Apr 2024 | ||
| mpysik | https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/1530 should be done | 13:00:55 |
| mpysik | the migration command was tested as well | 13:01:04 |
| mpysik | ready for reviews and hopefully merge | 13:01:35 |
| lmjachky | Amazing! Will review it tomorrow/onmondaymorning | 13:07:20 |
| lmjachky | cc: ipanova ^ in case you are interested | 13:15:10 |
| 16 Apr 2024 | ||
| lmjachky | Does anyone want to review this before merging: https://github.com/pulp/pulp_container/pull/1589? | 07:47:30 |
| lmjachky | I would like to cut a release for Katello | 07:47:46 |
| lmjachky | Should we enable testing the TOKEN_AUTH_DISABLED=true scenario in our CI/CD pipeline? | 10:46:42 |
| lmjachky | I have noticed that we do not have a separate runner for it even though Katello is purely relying on it | 10:47:20 |
| lmjachky | any objections? | 10:47:37 |
| lmjachky | related thread: https://matrix.to/#/!aVApiNMtnstWbwDcVU:matrix.org/$lFPtqJwwihVR6TF3unDQhmTcG22pvbp1eoDvWuJsK3s?via=matrix.org&via=ctrl-c.liu.se&via=x9c4.spdns.org | 10:50:43 |