[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
David Davis
daviddavis at redhat.com
Thu Apr 4 13:53:51 UTC 2019
At first I was thinking we could keep stories open and just close bugs and
tasks. However, I skimmed through open Pulp 2 stories and it seems a lot
(or most) aren't even applicable to Pulp 3.
It's easy enough for a user to re-open (or open) an issue if they feel like
it needs to be addressed in Pulp 2 or Pulp 3. So I agree with bulk closing.
David
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:47 AM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b54d54fc/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list