[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
Brian Bouterse
bbouters at redhat.com
Thu Apr 11 15:30:49 UTC 2019
I amended the query from earlier to also include Sprint = None, which now
includes 1043 issues (at this time) http://tinyurl.com/y35ts4sg
Regarding sprint_candidate=yes, there are 463 Pulp2 issues in that state.
If we disinclude those we'll still have an epic amount of Pulp2 issues open
in the tracker. Can we not include sprint candidate filtering and close the
1043 issues from this query: http://tinyurl.com/y35ts4sg
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:09 AM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:
> +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/b0fd0a19/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list