I do like the idea to evaluate Pulp 2 issues and create tickets for Pulp 3 - mainly to avoid some known problems.
Perhaps, we could create a new label on pulp.plan.io to distinguish those ones when migrated to Pulp 3. And file as a related issue to the previous Pulp 2 one. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:45 AM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: > re: going through open tickets - you can use the BK suggested algorithm > and monthly query for from some criteria (say last touched) and review & > close with the same message. We a pick a target by which we wish to close > all of the older Pulp 2 issues that won't be addressed and pick a criteria > to chunk through them. > > I would pick a fixed amount of time (both deadline & communicating to > other active devs so we aren't doubling effort) to dedicate to finding > issues to keep & convert to Pulp 3 items and just cut it off after that. > That approach makes sense to me in that once you get past a certain time > (which I believe is pretty small,) you are hitting diminishing returns. We > could use that time to fix more issues or just write a ticket again on Pulp > 3. > > Care should be taken to ensure pulp-list & blog post to cover: > - why prior to the closing > - what a user should do if they would like to pursue a fix (i.e. will we > take a pr? can they open a pulp 3 issue?) > > -Robin > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:28 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
