[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
Ina Panova
ipanova at redhat.com
Thu Apr 11 12:17:20 UTC 2019
i also suggest to add to the query 'sprint candidate yes' so we don't close
the ones we plan to solve in the upcoming sprint/s.
wdyt?
--------
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 1:16 PM Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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/20190411/92f1cd02/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list