After open floor, the consensus was to give all users the ability to reopen issues aside from dupes or completed/released. I've done that.
I think we want to go through open issues and close them out or groom them regardless of what we decide about doing a mass close so I went ahead and added an agenda item to our pulpcore meeting. David On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:49 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 to allow all users to re-open issues. > If ^, then +1 to closing as many backlog issues as seems needed. > > We can close based on the date and then review manually items with redmine > issue number less than N - old ones, to see if they have recent comments or > just spam. > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 6:08 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> -------- >> Regards, >> >> Ina Panova >> Senior 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, Aug 5, 2020 at 8:54 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> We've been discussing the possibility of closing issues in redmine due >>> to the overwhelming number of issues at NEW. Currently, we have 930 issues >>> at NEW and I think that exceeds our capacity to address each issue >>> individually. >>> >>> The first item I want to bring up for discussion is expanding the >>> ability for users to reopen closed issues. Currently only authors can >>> reopen issues at CLOSED excluding CLOSED - DUPLICATE and CLOSED - COMPLETE. >>> Should we expand this to all redmine users? >>> >> >> +1 to expand it to all users. >> >>> >>> If we expand this permission, this should give us the ability to safely >>> close out issues that fit some criteria. I looked at the pulpcore issues >>> and limited the issues to just ones without a Katello tag or a BZ and that >>> were created before 2020[0]. This still leaves us with almost 300 NEW >>> issues in pulpcore which still seems unrealistic to go through. Any >>> thoughts on what criteria to use? >>> >> >> We could also exclude issues that have Pulp2 tag. >> Even if we end up having 300 issues to process, I know that sounds a lot, >> but we can regularly dedicate 5 mins(timeboxed!) of our pulpcore team >> meeting, or open floor to go through. For some issues it is enough to read >> the title to make a decision. >> I *think* this might be a feasible idea, look how many and good >> improvements we did in redmine having it on the agenda for each open floor. >> >> Alsom, what will be the state of the issues we are going to mass close - >> CLOSED-WON'TFIX? >> >>> >>> [0] It would be better to use updated at to scope issues but >>> unfortunately a lot of older issues have been updated recently due to spam >>> comment >>> >> >>> David >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
