14:30:22 <ttereshc> #startmeeting Pulp Triage 2017-04-04 14:30:22 <pulpbot> Meeting started Tue Apr 4 14:30:22 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is ttereshc. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:30:22 <pulpbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:30:22 <pulpbot> The meeting name has been set to 'pulp_triage_2017_04_04' 14:30:22 <ttereshc> #info ttereshc has joined triage 14:30:22 <pulpbot> ttereshc has joined triage 14:30:37 <jortel> !here 14:30:37 <jortel> #info jortel has joined triage 14:30:37 <pulpbot> jortel has joined triage 14:31:11 <daviddavis> !here 14:31:11 <daviddavis> #info daviddavis has joined triage 14:31:12 <pulpbot> daviddavis has joined triage 14:32:13 * ttereshc thinks we need one more dev 14:32:41 <daviddavis> yea 14:33:15 <ttereshc> mhrivnak, bmbouter?^ 14:33:25 <mhrivnak> sorry, I think I missed some history. 14:33:35 <mhrivnak> just reconnected because I wasn't seeing any activity. :) 14:33:36 <ttereshc> would you like to participate intriage? 14:33:45 <mhrivnak> !here 14:33:45 <mhrivnak> #info mhrivnak has joined triage 14:33:45 <pulpbot> mhrivnak has joined triage 14:33:49 <ttereshc> !next 14:33:51 <pulpbot> 2 issues left to triage: 2689, 2691 14:33:51 <ttereshc> #topic Don't use ssh connection sharing in rsync distributor - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2689 14:33:52 <pulpbot> Pulp Issue #2689 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:33:53 <pulpbot> Don't use ssh connection sharing in rsync distributor - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2689 14:33:53 <bmbouter> !here 14:33:53 <bmbouter> #info bmbouter has joined triage 14:33:53 <pulpbot> bmbouter has joined triage 14:34:20 <mhrivnak> !propose accept 14:34:20 <mhrivnak> #idea Proposed for #2689: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:34:20 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2689: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:34:26 <ttereshc> easyfix? 14:34:35 <bmbouter> I think so 14:34:35 <mhrivnak> yes, good point. 14:34:50 <ttereshc> !accept 14:34:50 <ttereshc> #agreed Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:34:50 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: Leave the issue as-is, accepting its current state. 14:34:52 <pulpbot> 1 issues left to triage: 2691 14:34:53 <ttereshc> #topic Pulp should verify if source for link exists - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2691 14:34:53 <pulpbot> Pulp Issue #2691 [NEW] (unassigned) - Priority: Normal | Severity: Medium 14:34:54 <pulpbot> Pulp should verify if source for link exists - http://pulp.plan.io/issues/2691 14:35:41 <ttereshc> broken symlinks can exist in case of on_demand, right? 14:35:48 <mhrivnak> yes. 14:35:54 <bmbouter> I think this issue is too broad to be accepted as is 14:36:02 <mhrivnak> I agree. 14:36:13 <jortel> agreed 14:36:13 <ttereshc> jluza 's suggestion is probably valid for immediate case 14:36:53 <bmbouter> in pulp2 the symlink publising it's a plugin by plugin behavior right? 14:36:53 <mhrivnak> Perhaps he's getting at a question of: should publish validate that expected files are on disk? 14:37:30 <ttereshc> !propose needinfo 14:37:30 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2691: This issue cannot be triaged without more info. 14:37:30 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2691: This issue cannot be triaged without more info. 14:37:32 <mhrivnak> bmbouter, kinda? But not in a way that I think will necessarily change. 14:37:58 <jortel> actually, I think the suggested solution is wrong. verification (when appropriate) is the responsibility of the publisher, not the util function. 14:38:07 <jluza> mhrivnak, he just thinks pulp shouldn't produce invalid data when publish task finished successfully 14:38:30 <bmbouter> I agree completely with that, but it's not specific enough for us to fix as written 14:38:59 <bmbouter> if it's publishing broken symlinks when they are expected to work we need to understand how to reproduce it so we can fix it 14:39:07 <bmbouter> so I would say this needs a reproducer 14:39:10 <mhrivnak> jluza, i see your point. 14:39:27 <jluza> for me it does make sense to do fix in util method, if for some reason is there a situation where you don't like to validate source, you can add option for that 14:39:53 <jluza> otherwise you would have to change every single occurrence of make_symlink in your codes 14:40:27 <mhrivnak> I think there's a reasonable discussion to be had of whether it's enough for a distributor/publisher to create references to content that should exist, or must it also validate that the content it references exists. 14:40:41 <mhrivnak> How paranoid should it be. 14:41:23 <bmbouter> that all sounds good, but how would QE verify this without a reproducer? 14:41:31 <mhrivnak> Our users tend to be performance sensitive, particularly with regard to publishing, so verifying the presence of files is something we haven't added to that workflow. 14:42:33 <ttereshc> it can possibly be an option and users will be aware that it can slow things down 14:42:35 <mhrivnak> I could see this as an RFE to verify the presence of files during publish, and then we could discuss its value. 14:42:47 <jluza> I see there's question of quality vs quantity 14:42:58 <mhrivnak> I don't see this as a bug. 14:43:37 <jluza> ttereshc, you mean in [server] section: paranoid = True ? 14:44:04 <daviddavis> jluza: yea that's one option. or perhaps on the publisher? 14:44:20 <ttereshc> yep, Ithought more about publisher 14:44:36 <ttereshc> jluza, what do you think about changing it to story? 14:44:39 <bmbouter> but if this feature compensates for a defect then we should fix the defect 14:44:44 <mhrivnak> Validation of content on disk in general is something a lot of people are interested in being able to do. 14:44:52 <mhrivnak> I'm not sure publish is the right time to do it. 14:45:04 <jortel> agreed 14:45:14 <bmbouter> can we turn it into a story and continue discussion on the bug? 14:45:23 <jortel> yes, let's do that 14:45:31 <jluza> mhrivnak, what should be good time then? 14:45:34 <mhrivnak> +1 14:45:39 <ttereshc> !propose other convert to story 14:45:39 <ttereshc> #idea Proposed for #2691: convert to story 14:45:40 <pulpbot> Proposed for #2691: convert to story 14:45:40 <mhrivnak> jluza, sync 14:45:51 <mhrivnak> or "download_repo" task 14:45:54 <jluza> mhrivnak, yeah, I already filled another story for that 14:45:55 <mhrivnak> or some new task we don't have yet. 14:46:06 <jluza> mhrivnak, hmm actually Ina did that, but we discussed that 14:47:44 <ttereshc> jluza, do you have link handy? 14:47:51 <ttereshc> I can't find it 14:48:21 <ttereshc> mhrivnak, so we will convert this bug to story or close it if it is a dup 14:48:23 <ttereshc> ok? 14:48:27 <jluza> ttereshc, https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2624 14:48:29 <pulpbot> Title: Story #2624: As a user, I can verify blobs checksum during sync - Docker Support - Pulp (at pulp.plan.io) 14:48:33 <mhrivnak> Either is fine with me. 14:48:44 <ttereshc> #agreed convert to story 14:48:45 <ttereshc> !accept 14:48:45 <pulpbot> Current proposal accepted: convert to story 14:48:47 <pulpbot> No issues to triage. 14:48:56 <ttereshc> !end 14:48:56 <ttereshc> #endmeeting