RPM Support

Some IRC discussion bits, where asmacdo asked a question about my statement above that errata are not content units:

15:19 <smyers> This isn't a story, but it is an enhancement. I'm not sure how (or if) it can be written as a story: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/1989
15:19 <@pulpbot> Title: Refactor #1989: Refactor errata to be related to repositories - RPM Support - Pulp (at pulp.plan.io)
15:21 <smyers> But I think it's pretty important for pulp 3, and so it's work getting on a pulp 2 sprint if we can as part of making changes in 2 to make migration to 3 easier.
15:21 <smyers> s/work/worth
15:21 smyers: But I think it's pretty important for pulp 3, and so it's worth getting on a pulp 2 sprint if we can as part of making changes in 2 to make migration to 3 easier.
15:22 <asmacdo> smyers, this would not be backwards incompatible?
15:23 <asmacdo> seems like it would require forking for 3 to me
15:23 <smyers> why?
15:24 <asmacdo> i might be wrong, but removing a content unit and making it metadata just sounds backwards incompatible
15:24 <asmacdo> unless you mean that ^ is the goal, this is a preliminary step towards it
15:26 <smyers> I don't think I recommended that we make errata not be content units, right? Just that they already aren't content units, and so we should, as the story says, Refactor errata to be related to repositories.
15:28 <mhrivnak> The current model has definitely proven to be cumbersome. Thinking about what changes could make that better is great. Perhaps a brainstorm session at some point would be productive, to identify some options in a bit more detail.
15:29 <smyers> It strikes me as inherently inappropriate to associate content units with repositories in any way that is separate from the existing RepositoryContentUnit join tabl...er...collection, so justification is warranted for proposing an additional relationship to something that errata are already related to.
15:29 <smyers> For errata, that justification is that they aren't actually content units.