+1 i like the comment +1 sending an email, so people can look and re-open if needed.
-------- Regards, Ina Panova Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 6:37 PM David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > David > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:19 AM Dennis Kliban <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:12 AM Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
