[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Fri Apr 12 22:00:59 UTC 2019


I forgot to mention that the original queries included the Debian plugin's
tickets, but after seeing their issues it was clear that I should not
adjust their state.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:53 PM Kersom <kersom at redhat.com> wrote:

> Total per component.
>
> Crane 16
> Docker Support 52
> Nectar 17
> OSTree Support 11
> Pulp 689
> Puppet Support 41
> Python Support 12
> RPM Support 186
> Total 1024
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:33 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As I'm sure you can see from the redmine notifications, the mass-closing
>> happened. 1024 issues were CLOSED - WONTFIX, each with a comment inviting
>> it to be reopened if someone is able to contribute to it.
>>
>> Attached is a csv file containing all of the issues that were closed
>> WONTFIX. This is a pretty easy way to look over them if anyone is
>> interested.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 3:12 PM Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Corey,
>>> I agree that the term "near" to "maintentance mode" will probably not be
>>> within the "near" expectation for most folks.
>>> We agreed to exclude redmine issue with external trackers associated to
>>> it for Satellite and do a evaluation of those on a 1x1 basis.
>>> However I don't think that anything in the foreseeable future changing
>>> our resource dedication to Pulp 3. Any changes in Pulp 2 are probably yet
>>> to be requested now (issue not written yet) or in those items we will
>>> review on a 1x1 basis.
>>> Does that help?
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 2:53 PM Corey Welton <cwelton at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Late to the party here, but is it prudent to close Pulp 2 issues given
>>>> that Pulp 2 will be sticking around Satellite for quite some time?
>>>>
>>>> I have read the conversations in this thread about how to limit the
>>>> scope of closure, but I still wonder how wise a notion this is. Is it
>>>> premature to call Pulp 2 near EOL or "maintenance mode" when we've got
>>>> downstream products reliant on it for a significant amount of time in the
>>>> future?
>>>>
>>>> Not trying to open a can of worms, just wondering if we're going to
>>>> need to have more specific focus on Pulp 2 than previously anticipated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190412/2c295960/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list