[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
Ina Panova
ipanova at redhat.com
Thu Apr 11 17:02:09 UTC 2019
agreed, le'ts not include sprint_candidate, instead we can re-open issues
that need attention.
for example, rpm and docker plugins created a list with issues we plan to
re-open.
--------
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 5:31 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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/a7e1c498/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list