[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
Dennis Kliban
dkliban at redhat.com
Wed Apr 10 15:18:48 UTC 2019
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:12 AM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback. Also, this is a great idea. Overall I think
> some helpful info on why this is being closed and what anyone could do to
> reopen it would be good. This way anyone who does want to contribute still
> can and we are clear on that. What about if I leave the following comment
> on all items closed on Friday in the query? Please edit or +1 or send more
> ideas.
>
> ---- comment start ----
>
> Pulp 2 is approaching maintenance mode, and this Pulp 2 ticket is not
> being actively worked on. As such, it is being closed as WONTFIX. Pulp 2 is
> still accepting contributions though, so if you want to contribute a fix
> for this ticket, please reopen or comment on it. If you don't have
> permissions to reopen this ticket, or you want to discuss an issue, please
> reach out via the "developer mailing list":
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev.
>
> --- commend end ----
>
>
That looks great to me.
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:19 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko <ttereshc at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190410/541d5881/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list