[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?

[Robin Chan]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190404/36176dbf/attachment.htm>