Story #1158: As a user, I can force full/fresh publish of rpms and not do an incremental publish - RPM Support - Pulp

Actions

Send by e-mail Copy link

Story #1158

closed

As a user, I can force full/fresh publish of rpms and not do an incremental publish

Added by jluza over 8 years ago. Updated about 5 years ago.

Status:

CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE

Priority:

Normal

Assignee:

ttereshc

Sprint/Milestone:

Start date:

Due date:

% Done:

100%

Estimated time:

Platform Release:

2.9.0

Groomed:

Sprint Candidate:

Yes

Tags:

Easy Fix, Pulp 2

Sprint:

Sprint 1

Quarter:

Description

Pulp should have way how to prevent a second publish from being published as a fast-forward. For example when you need to fast way how to fix inconsistency between repodata/packages on disk and in database.

Suggested change:

https://github.com/release-engineering/pulp_rpm/commit/d16d6c831d71397f8a6b2b03ad1e8fad80120ef9

Related issues

Actions

Copy link

Updated by mhrivnak over 8 years ago

Tracker changed from Issue to Story
Subject changed from skip_fast_forward option for publish to As a user, I can force full publish of rpm repos
Groomed set to No
Sprint Candidate set to Yes
Tags Easy Fix added

Actions

Copy link

Updated by mhrivnak over 8 years ago

Has duplicate Story #1098: Support a 'forced' metadata regeneration added

Actions

Copy link

Updated by bmbouter about 8 years ago

Subject changed from As a user, I can force full publish of rpm repos to As a user, I can force full/fresh publish of rpms and not do an incremental publish
Description updated (diff)

Actions

Copy link

Updated by bmbouter about 8 years ago

Parent issue set to #1683

Actions

Copy link

Updated by mhrivnak about 8 years ago

Blocks Story #1724: Publish should be a no-op if no units and no settings have changed since the last successful publish added

Actions

Copy link

Updated by mhrivnak about 8 years ago

I suggest a different setting name, but this looks like a good behavior to add.

The fast-forward feature causes some parts of the normal publish to be skipped. Having a setting to skip that skipping is just a little awkward. Do two skips cancel each other out?

Instead I suggest a setting like "force_full", or something similar. It focuses on what the user wants, not what they don't want.

Actions

Copy link