[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
Tatiana Tereshchenko
ttereshc at redhat.com
Tue Apr 9 17:19:03 UTC 2019
Sounds good to me.
One suggestion. How about asking for a contribution before closing, however
only in cases when we expect to accept the contribution?
e.g. not a huge or risky change, and the bug fix is important for a
reporter.
It will be clear for community that we are still willing to accept
contributions to Pulp 2 if they really need those changes.
Adding issues to the sprint usually indicates that Pulp core team is
working on them or there is already a PR opened.
Tanya
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:18 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
> In conversation with @kersom a question came up: How would Pulp2 bugs be
> handled in the future?
>
> With Pulp2 approaching maintenance mode I think the general idea is that
> Pulp2 bugs can be filed, but unless they are added to the sprint during
> triage they would be closed WONTFIX with a note indicating Pulp2 is
> approaching maintenance mode. This is effectively the same process we
> already apply to Pulp2 bugs except that instead of sending to the Pulp2
> backlog we close them.
>
> Ideas and feedback is welcome!
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks David!
>>
>> Here is a new query with that addition: http://tinyurl.com/yxqyto7q
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:40 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 8 of the issues in your query are on the current sprint. You should
>>> probably filter by Sprint = None.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There seems to be some support to close those Pulp2 issues not in an
>>>> external tracker. How do people feel about us taking a mass-close action
>>>> this Friday April 12th? Specifically on Friday I would:
>>>>
>>>> 1. close all issues shown in the "no external tracker related" items,
>>>> this query: http://tinyurl.com/yyf3m8ma
>>>> 2. send an email with a csv record of everything that was mass-closed.
>>>> This way anyone can look at them at any point and port, reopen, re-read,
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:52 PM Om Prakash Singh <ompnix at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05-Apr-2019, at 8:53 PM, Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me amend my comments to say, I was recommending the closures for
>>>>> Pulp 2 issue not linked to an external tracker. Also, another suggestion is
>>>>> that mini-team could take the action to close the Pulp 2 redmine issues as
>>>>> a way to break up the work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it would be great if we can copy over the correct issues over
>>>>> to GitHub issues and close the rest of others.
>>>>>
>>>>> For issues linked to an external bug tracker -David Davis on IRC
>>>>> indicated yesterday that the number of issues linked to an external bug
>>>>> tracker is manageable to go through. I'd want to make sure we aren't going
>>>>> to cause any automation to change statuses on the external bug tracker that
>>>>> aren't discussed ahead of time with stakeholders.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:55 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20190409/009423a2/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list