[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?

Bryan Kearney bkearney at redhat.com
Thu Apr 4 13:26:41 UTC 2019


I was involved in the Satellite 5 to Satellite 6 bug triage. We brought
known issues foreward, and after a few months the language and usage was
so different that we ended up buk closing.

So, I could see moving over feature requests if they may sense, but if
the RFE is unique to pulp2 or if it is bug against pulp2 I would suggest
you delete/abandon it.

-- bk

On 4/4/19 8:52 AM, Kersom wrote:
> 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
> <http://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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:bbouters at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>         On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Austin Macdonald
>         <austin at redhat.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
>                     https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> 
>             _______________________________________________
>             Pulp-dev mailing list
>             Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
>             https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         Pulp-dev mailing list
>         Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
>         https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Pulp-dev mailing list
>     Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto: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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190404/a419e748/attachment.sig>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list