At first I was thinking we could keep stories open and just close bugs and tasks. However, I skimmed through open Pulp 2 stories and it seems a lot (or most) aren't even applicable to Pulp 3.
It's easy enough for a user to re-open (or open) an issue if they feel like it needs to be addressed in Pulp 2 or Pulp 3. So I agree with bulk closing. David On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:47 AM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: > Byan, > > What you are saying makes a lot of sense to me. The architectural > differences between Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 are so great that most bugs don't > translate well from one to the other. I would prefer if we just mass close > Pulp 2 issues. > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:27 AM Bryan Kearney <bkear...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I was involved in the Satellite 5 to Satellite 6 bug triage. We brought >> known issues foreward, and after a few months the language and usage was >> so different that we ended up buk closing. >> >> So, I could see moving over feature requests if they may sense, but if >> the RFE is unique to pulp2 or if it is bug against pulp2 I would suggest >> you delete/abandon it. >> >> -- bk >> >> On 4/4/19 8:52 AM, Kersom wrote: >> > 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 >> > <http://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 >> > <mailto: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 >> > <mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Austin Macdonald >> > <aus...@redhat.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> >> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Pulp-dev mailing list >> > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> >> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Pulp-dev mailing list >> > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> >> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Pulp-dev mailing list >> > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto: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