[Pulp-dev] Plugin triage

Robin Chan rchan at redhat.com
Wed Mar 7 13:58:25 UTC 2018

I would like to hear from QE since I know they had some concerns here.
Since the Pulp QE team is much smaller, having to manage attendance to
multiple traige's per week is more of a strain on them to have the
interruptions and their expertise may not be as clearly delineated as a
larger team which has had some time to align with plugin teams. I hope they
can chime in on their specific concerns here and suggestions on what needs
they have or suggestions.

+1 to Daniel's suggestion on perhaps ordering the items sounds promising.
If we wanted to make a small tweak, maybe we can have the core (and is
packaging meaning build packaging and not a plug in) could go first and try
to order 1-2 plugins (maybe the more active ones that we are triaging more
issues on that others), and then letting the rest go in whatever order
would allow us to evaluate and try out the predictions/concerns Daniel
I think some of the issue is that some of the items are not always tagged
appropriately? I think if plugin teams could at least ensure those are
tagged appropriately that might cut down on some of the discussion on
those? Or perhaps we can set a rule that if 2 members of plugin team aren't
present, the item is automatically skipped?

Some of my concerns regarding individual plugin triages:
Ina brings up a point that if triage continues to maintain the power to add
things to the current sprint, then lack of whole team feedback could be
problematic. I think we may not want to grant that power until we are
handling plugin staffing truly independently, which I don't believe we are
able to do yet.
If plugin items are triaged separately, will they still have the pulpbot
minutes recorded? Or would that be a downside to doing them independently?


On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> It makes sense to let to mini-teams to triage the issues, but the decision
> whether to put or not on the sprint still should be addressed by whole
> team, or at least acknowledged.
> --------
> Regards,
> Ina Panova
> 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 Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180307/72c0b7ff/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list