Brian, i think the query should have Sprint and Sprint/Milestone because plugins have the Sprint filter only.
-------- 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 Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:38 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > +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 <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> +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 >> >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev