[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?

[Kersom]

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 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 <rchan at 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 <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Austin Macdonald <austin at 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 <austin at 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 <bbouters at 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 at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190404/300550e4/attachment.htm>