On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:12 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback. Also, this is a great idea. Overall I think > some helpful info on why this is being closed and what anyone could do to > reopen it would be good. This way anyone who does want to contribute still > can and we are clear on that. What about if I leave the following comment > on all items closed on Friday in the query? Please edit or +1 or send more > ideas. > > ---- comment start ---- > > Pulp 2 is approaching maintenance mode, and this Pulp 2 ticket is not > being actively worked on. As such, it is being closed as WONTFIX. Pulp 2 is > still accepting contributions though, so if you want to contribute a fix > for this ticket, please reopen or comment on it. If you don't have > permissions to reopen this ticket, or you want to discuss an issue, please > reach out via the "developer mailing list": > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev. > > --- commend end ---- > > That looks great to me. > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:19 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> 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 <bbout...@redhat.com> >> 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 <bbout...@redhat.com> >>> 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 <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>> 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 <bbout...@redhat.com> >>>>> 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 <omp...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev