Sounds good to me. One suggestion. How about asking for a contribution before closing, however only in cases when we expect to accept the contribution? e.g. not a huge or risky change, and the bug fix is important for a reporter. It will be clear for community that we are still willing to accept contributions to Pulp 2 if they really need those changes. Adding issues to the sprint usually indicates that Pulp core team is working on them or there is already a PR opened.
Tanya On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:18 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > In conversation with @kersom a question came up: How would Pulp2 bugs be > handled in the future? > > With Pulp2 approaching maintenance mode I think the general idea is that > Pulp2 bugs can be filed, but unless they are added to the sprint during > triage they would be closed WONTFIX with a note indicating Pulp2 is > approaching maintenance mode. This is effectively the same process we > already apply to Pulp2 bugs except that instead of sending to the Pulp2 > backlog we close them. > > Ideas and feedback is welcome! > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks David! >> >> Here is a new query with that addition: http://tinyurl.com/yxqyto7q >> >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:40 PM David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 8 of the issues in your query are on the current sprint. You should >>> probably filter by Sprint = None. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There seems to be some support to close those Pulp2 issues not in an >>>> external tracker. How do people feel about us taking a mass-close action >>>> this Friday April 12th? Specifically on Friday I would: >>>> >>>> 1. close all issues shown in the "no external tracker related" items, >>>> this query: http://tinyurl.com/yyf3m8ma >>>> 2. send an email with a csv record of everything that was mass-closed. >>>> This way anyone can look at them at any point and port, reopen, re-read, >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:52 PM Om Prakash Singh <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 05-Apr-2019, at 8:53 PM, Robin Chan <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>>>> 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 <[email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 < >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Austin Macdonald >>>>>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >>>>>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >>>>>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> > [email protected] <mailto: >>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> > [email protected] >>>>>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
