We talked this over some more today at the pulpcore meeting. I think we're going to instead go through the issues and close them out manually. I've scheduled a 2 hour session for a week from Monday. Please send me an email if you'd like to attend.
David On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:47 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: > Per our conversation this morning, I have created a spreadsheet of the 100 > oldest issues at NEW in the Pulp project. I filtered out issues that were > tagged with Katello or that had a BZ attached to them. > > As for which issues to keep open: I added a column called "Champion" where > people could add their name if they want to champion an issue, push it > forward, and ensure that it could be picked up and worked on. Any issue > that has a Champion attached to it will be left at NEW; the rest will be > closed as WONTFIX. > > I'll propose a deadline of September 1st before I close out the issues. As > always, feedback is welcome. > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Dm1Z2phjJY1CThOD1zzBfwqt16SyO8AJ-ShkbBIRQKI/edit?usp=sharing > > David > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:44 PM Robin Chan <rc...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I'd be OK with using time last edited or created being over some value (6 >> months) as an auto-close with a note to re-open. For older bug reports or >> feature requests - if a user has lived without it for a long time without >> contributing a fix, then some re-engagement to re-open an issue helps >> provide some priority assessment. >> >> Robin Chan >> >> She/Her/Hers >> >> Satellite Software Engineering Manager - Pulp >> >> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> >> >> IRC: rchan >> >> Red Hat respects your work life balance. Therefore there is no need to >> answer this email out of your office hours. >> <https://www.redhat.com> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:34 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
