[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
Ina Panova
ipanova at redhat.com
Thu Apr 11 11:16:52 UTC 2019
Brian,
i think the query should have Sprint and Sprint/Milestone because plugins
have the Sprint filter only.
--------
Regards,
Ina Panova
Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
"Do not go where the path may lead,
go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:38 PM Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:
> +1 i like the comment
> +1 sending an email, so people can look and re-open if needed.
>
>
> --------
> Regards,
>
> Ina Panova
> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>
> "Do not go where the path may lead,
> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 6:37 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:19 AM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20190411/55aaeed7/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list