+1 David
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:19 AM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev