[Pulp-dev] Plugin triage

[Daniel Alley]

I'm fine with this.  I dislike the idea of multiple meetings but I think
that what will end up happening is that the issue load for each project
individually will be low enough that they will can and will all end up
being handled asynchronously as they come in.  I also think that letting
each plugin decide what is best for them.

But just to throw this out there, there are a few other things we could do
to help address the problem.

We could modify the triage bot to group the issues by type instead of
listing them chronologically by number.  All core issues would be handled
first, followed by the plugin with the largest number of issues, followed
by the plugin with the next largest, etc.  The triage bot could know the
composition of the plugin teams and ping the relevant members when a group
of issues that concerns them comes up.

Pros:

- No concerns about lack of cross-pollination, everything is still
completely transparent
    - Community members could still be involved and/or observe the process,
which they can't do if every plugin meeting is separate and done in email
or IRC

Cons:

- If you're involved in triaging issues a couple minutes apart, what can
you _really_ do in that time?
    - Multiple interruptions, not *necessarily* gaining much efficiency
    - Triage lead still would still have to be involved the entire time,
whereas ideally someone directly involved with that plugin would be in
control
- Triage would still take a long time, and would hold up #pulp-dev for that
duration


On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> Currently the biweekly triage query includes a large number of unrelated
> topics: Pulp, RPM, Puppet, Python, Ansible (the pulp3 role plugin),
> Packaging, OS Tree, Crane, Docker, External, and File Support. These are
> all different top-level pulp.plan.io projects in Redmine. These are so
> many specializations I think it makes sense to have issues triaged by just
> the people who focus on them. Also once per week may or may not be the
> right frequency for all of these things which could bring people into
> meetings they may not contribute to or benefit from. +1 to having plugin
> teams triage issues how they want.
>
> For Ansible for example, @daviddavis and I can just talk about issues as
> they come it. I have it set to email me when they are filed, so we don't
> need a meeting at all.
>
> What about a gradual transition? If/when plugin/project committers decide
> to do it differently, then can email pulp-dev asking to be removed and
> someone can update the query.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:47 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> At our last retrospective, we discussed the possibility of not triaging
>> plugin issues as part of our biweekly triage sessions. We didn’t reach an
>> agreement so I took the action item to start a discussion on pulp-dev.
>>
>> First off some benefits of not triaging plugin issues as part of our
>> triage sessions:
>>
>> - If we let plugin teams triage their own issues, they can select a time
>> when the whole team is able to meet. Our biweekly meeting tends to only
>> involve a subsets of plugin teams.
>> - Time is wasted when plugin issues come up and usually just the plugin
>> team members discuss it.
>> - We don’t have a consistent policy around which plugin issues we triage.
>> For instance, we don’t triage pulp_deb.
>>
>> There are some downsides however:
>>
>> - I think the biggest issue is that there’ll be less transparency into
>> plugins. This could lead to more siloing and less cross-pollination.
>> - Potentially more meetings if all plugins decide to schedule their own
>> triage meetings.
>> - Plugin issues could go untriaged if plugin teams aren’t responsible.
>>
>> A couple solutions to the problem that were proposed:
>>
>> - Ask plugin teams schedule their own triage meetings. They could
>> probably do this on a less regular basis.
>> - Have plugin teams triage their issues how they want. This could even be
>> asynchronously as issues come in. Could be done via IRC/email/etc.
>>
>> I think at the least it might be worth trying out an alternative approach
>> for a limited time (e.g. 2 months) and then reevaluating. Thoughts?
>>
>> David
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180305/5a6b0273/attachment.htm>