i also suggest to add to the query 'sprint candidate yes' so we don't close the ones we plan to solve in the upcoming sprint/s. wdyt?
-------- 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 1:16 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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