> On 05-Apr-2019, at 8:53 PM, Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Let me amend my comments to say, I was recommending the closures for Pulp 2 > issue not linked to an external tracker. Also, another suggestion is that > mini-team could take the action to close the Pulp 2 redmine issues as a way > to break up the work. > I think it would be great if we can copy over the correct issues over to GitHub issues and close the rest of others. > For issues linked to an external bug tracker -David Davis on IRC indicated > yesterday that the number of issues linked to an external bug tracker is > manageable to go through. I'd want to make sure we aren't going to cause any > automation to change statuses on the external bug tracker that aren't > discussed ahead of time with stakeholders. > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:55 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com > <mailto:davidda...@redhat.com>> wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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/> > > <http://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> > > <mailto: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> > > <mailto: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> > > <mailto: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> > > <mailto: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> > > <mailto: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 > > <https://tinyurl.com/y289wx5p> > > > > Thanks, > > Brian > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> > > <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> > > <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> > > <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> > > <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > <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 > > <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 > <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 > <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 > <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
