[Pulp-dev] MODIFIED redmine issues for 3.0 beta
dkliban at redhat.com
Tue May 15 13:26:55 UTC 2018
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:
> If i am not mistaken as of now the person who takes care of a release
> needs to manually change the issue status.
> There is a possibility to select all the issues and actually move the
> status in 1 click. Do you think to automate this will pay off?
We are currently automating the releasing of pulpcore and pulp_file using
Travis. I was hoping to add this issue update step to that automation.
> I am fine to close issues as current release in case we set the target
> release specifically Beta, otherwise it sounds like it brings some
> There is a big period between Beta and GA and you never know what can
> happen to those set issues especially if they are targeted as GA.
I don't think we've been setting the target release field for the pulp 3
work. We could start doing that at release time. The value would be the
version of the beta release. That should reduce confusion.
> 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 Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Historically we would transition issues in Pulp's issue tracker from
>> MODIFIED to CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE when a GA build went out the door. The
>> same approach is working against us for the duration of the Pulp 3.0 beta.
>> We have a large number of issues in MODIFIED state, but are considered
>> I propose that we transition issues to CLOSED - CURRENTRELEASE when they
>> have been shipped with a 3.0 beta.
>> Could we add automation to do this at release time?
>> What do you all think?
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev