I forgot to mention that the original queries included the Debian plugin's tickets, but after seeing their issues it was clear that I should not adjust their state.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:53 PM Kersom <ker...@redhat.com> wrote: > Total per component. > > Crane 16 > Docker Support 52 > Nectar 17 > OSTree Support 11 > Pulp 689 > Puppet Support 41 > Python Support 12 > RPM Support 186 > Total 1024 > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:33 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> As I'm sure you can see from the redmine notifications, the mass-closing >> happened. 1024 issues were CLOSED - WONTFIX, each with a comment inviting >> it to be reopened if someone is able to contribute to it. >> >> Attached is a csv file containing all of the issues that were closed >> WONTFIX. This is a pretty easy way to look over them if anyone is >> interested. >> >> Thank you, >> Brian >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 3:12 PM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
