+1 to excluding sprint candidates ... this should be a small number of issues
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 8:17 AM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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