[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
Dennis Kliban
dkliban at redhat.com
Thu Apr 4 13:46:47 UTC 2019
Byan,
What you are saying makes a lot of sense to me. The architectural
differences between Pulp 2 and Pulp 3 are so great that most bugs don't
translate well from one to the other. I would prefer if we just mass close
Pulp 2 issues.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:27 AM Bryan Kearney <bkearney at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190404/11a35d86/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list