[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
Dennis Kliban
dkliban at redhat.com
Thu Apr 11 15:09:44 UTC 2019
+1 to excluding sprint candidates ... this should be a small number of
issues
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 8:17 AM Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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/20190411/49027dcd/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list