Corey, I agree that the term "near" to "maintentance mode" will probably not be within the "near" expectation for most folks. We agreed to exclude redmine issue with external trackers associated to it for Satellite and do a evaluation of those on a 1x1 basis. However I don't think that anything in the foreseeable future changing our resource dedication to Pulp 3. Any changes in Pulp 2 are probably yet to be requested now (issue not written yet) or in those items we will review on a 1x1 basis. Does that help? Robin
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 2:53 PM Corey Welton <cwel...@redhat.com> wrote: > Late to the party here, but is it prudent to close Pulp 2 issues given > that Pulp 2 will be sticking around Satellite for quite some time? > > I have read the conversations in this thread about how to limit the scope > of closure, but I still wonder how wise a notion this is. Is it premature > to call Pulp 2 near EOL or "maintenance mode" when we've got downstream > products reliant on it for a significant amount of time in the future? > > Not trying to open a can of worms, just wondering if we're going to need > to have more specific focus on Pulp 2 than previously anticipated. > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM 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. >> >> 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
