On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I think if we close a lot of them, closed issues will be very difficult to > find with ~4500 bugs (open and closed). I've been spending some time > combing the backlog recently, and I'm compiling lists of bugs that I think > can be closed. What I am also finding are tickets that could reasonably be > updated for Pulp 3. IMO, these tickets are common enough that it would be > worth our time to consider them. > I think this list would be great. Can we start a shared list somewhere for backlog items we do want to keep? > Of course, going through the enormous backlog will be very time consuming. > If we agree that there is too much value to close the lot of them, then > AFAICT the only path forward is to coordinate the effort and move through > it over time. > This is my concern mainly. I don't know how to go through 1125 tickets. Also, I am also partly concerned with an outcome where the Pulp3 issues contain a historical record of pulp2 requests "ported" to pulp3. If the reporter or stakeholder isn't around to advocate for a fix or feature themselves, then I believe we can serve the current users best by focusing on those things that are actively being requested (newly file'd issues). Still, if you have a list of items and they make sense to port we should do so. > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:22 PM Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I think if we close a lot of them, closed issues will be very difficult >> to find with ~4500 bugs (open and closed). I've been spending some time >> combing the backlog recently, and I'm compiling lists of bugs that I think >> can be closed. What I am also finding are tickets that could reasonably be >> updated for Pulp 3. IMO, these tickets are common enough that it would be >> worth our time to consider them. >> >> Of course, going through the enormous backlog will be very time >> consuming. If we agree that there is too much value to close the lot of >> them, then AFAICT the only path forward is to coordinate the effort and >> move through it over time. >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:06 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> As Pulp2 approaches the maintenance mode we have a large number of Pulp2 >>> bugs open. A query [0] shows 1125 open Pulp2 bugs alone as of just now. We >>> will likely address a small set of these before Pulp2 reaches its final >>> release. What can we do to bring transparency into what will versus won't >>> be fixed for Pulp2? >>> >>> The most reasonable option I can think to propose is a mass-close of the >>> Pulp2 bugs except for those that we are actively working or planning to >>> start work soon on. Overall I believe Pulp2 is nearing a point that if we >>> aren't actively working or planning something for it we won't want to leave >>> it open on the "Pulp 2 backlog ". Bugs accidentally closed could be >>> reopened without much trouble probably. >>> >>> What do you think about the of a close-all-but-active Pulp2 bugs idea? >>> How would you coordinate such an effort? >>> >>> [0]: https://tinyurl.com/y289wx5p >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
