[Pulp-dev] redmine process for katello-integration-related issues

Grant Gainey ggainey at redhat.com
Thu Apr 23 12:12:09 UTC 2020 

OK, so let's take a step back.  The thing that the initial proposal is/was
attempting to address is that with the current P1/2/3 system, issues that
are P2 one day become P1 the next, basically tied to katello's and pulp's
release cycles. The goal was to be able to a) mark all issues that are
important to katelllo, b) mark them for "when katello will need them" to
meet its promises, and then c) be able to prioritize work inside a release
cycle. Note that we were/are trying to get away from priority meaning
"which release" - there are things that have been discussed, that are
nice-to-haves (and therefore not High priority), that would need to be
available by a given release for katello to take advantage of them (ie
slated for a milestone). We also need to separate blockers from "work as
usual". The initial proposal would solve a) by tagging something as
'Katello', b) by use of the milestone field to show what release *of pulp*
the thing needed to be available by, and let us use Priority to address all
the aspects of c), with blockers getting the Urgent priority.

Having done a bunch more digging, you're right, 'milestone' as it stands
can't be used this way for anything other than pulpcore.

I think what we can do at this point is something like this:

   - set milestone for pulpcore issues, P2 = 3.4, P3 = 3.5
   - mark *all* the Katello-PX tagged issues with an additional 'Katello'
   tag
   - any open Katello-P1 issues get set to *High* priority
   - remove the Katello-PX tags from *pulpcore issues only*
   - for the plugins, leave the Katello-PX tags - plugins who want to
   follow this process can set version-milestones as appropriate and remove
   when they're done

How's that sound?

G


On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:29 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> pulpcore is not the only project with milestones. Each project has its own
> set of milestones to represent different versions. The issue is your
> proposal is trying to assign all Katello-PX issues to a pulpcore milestone.
> That won't work if you have say a pulp_container or pulp_ansible issue with
> a Katello-PX tag.
>
> You could go through all the Katello-PX issues and try to figure out which
> milestone in which project to assign it to but with so many milestones and
> projects, it's going to be a huge pain. My suggestion was to just worry
> about the open issues and not try to retroactively assign these issues to
> milestones.
>
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 7:12 PM Grant Gainey <ggainey at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 6:17 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A couple observations: the 3.3[0] and 3.4[1] milestones already exist in
>>> redmine. Also, you won't be able to assign any of the MODIFIED issues to
>>> 3.3 because they're all plugin issues and the 3.3 milestone is exclusive to
>>> pulpcore. IMHO, I probably wouldn't assign any issues to any milestones. I
>>> think it would be worse having an issue on the wrong milestone than it
>>> being unassigned.
>>>
>>
>> If pulpcore is the only thing that has the version-milestones, then we're
>> at a dead stop. The whole point of the initial process proposal, was that
>> "milestone" would be able to completely replace the Katello-PX tags as a
>> way for Katello to tell us what they needed/expected when; if that's only
>> useful for pulpcore, then we have missed the mark, since the tags are used
>> cross-organizationally.
>>
>> If you look at the list of open-issues
>> <https://pulp.plan.io/issues?c%5B%5D=project&c%5B%5D=tracker&c%5B%5D=status&c%5B%5D=priority&c%5B%5D=subject&c%5B%5D=author&c%5B%5D=assigned_to&c%5B%5D=cf_3&c%5B%5D=cf_7&f%5B%5D=status_id&f%5B%5D=cf_7&f%5B%5D=&group_by=&op%5Bcf_7%5D=%3D&op%5Bstatus_id%5D=o&set_filter=1&sort=project%2Cstatus%2Ccf_7&t%5B%5D=&utf8=%E2%9C%93&v%5Bcf_7%5D%5B%5D=Katello-P1&v%5Bcf_7%5D%5B%5D=Katello-P2&v%5Bcf_7%5D%5B%5D=Katello-P3>
>> currently tagged with Katello-PX tags, you'll see more than pulpcore in
>> there.
>>
>> From ttereshc's summary email:
>>
>>>
>>>    - tag katello-related issues as 'Katello'
>>>
>>>
>>>    - *use the milestone field to define the
>>>    planned-pulp-release-version*
>>>
>>>
>>>    - use the Priority field to mark how important it is *to Katello*
>>>
>>>
>>>    - remove the existing Katello P1/2/3 tags
>>>
>>>  If we can't mark non-pulpcore-issues with
>> "planned-pulp-release-version", then this proposal is DOA.
>>
>> Clearly, we need some more discussion! Anyone else want to join in?
>>
>> G
>>
>>
>>> That would leave the process somewhat simpler:
>>>
>>> 1. Create a Katello tag and assign it to all Katello-PX issues
>>> 2. Set the priority to high for P1 issues, medium for P2 issues, and low
>>> for P3 issues
>>> 3. Optionally, add open P2 issues to 3.4 milestone
>>> 4. Remove all Katello-PX tags
>>>
>>> And then Katello can just add the 15 issues at NEW/ASSIGNED to a
>>> milestone as they see fit: https://pulp.plan.io/issues?query_id=113.
>>>
>>> [0] https://pulp.plan.io/versions/83
>>> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/versions/88
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:15 PM Grant Gainey <ggainey at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>
>>>> To close the loop on this:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:26 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>>> ttereshc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 and to the nitpick as well
>>>>>
>>>>>    - tag katello-related issues as 'Katello'
>>>>>    - use the milestone field to define the
>>>>>    planned-pulp-release-version
>>>>>    - use the Priority field to mark how important it is *to Katello*
>>>>>    - remove the existing Katello P1/2/3 tags
>>>>>
>>>>> I am working to actually make these changes, and need a quick check on
>>>> specifics.
>>>>
>>>> Right now there are 29 open issues with a Katello-PX tag. 14 of these
>>>> are in MODIFIED/P1, all against various plugins (ansible, certguard, and
>>>> rpm)  I propose to do the following (order matters):
>>>>
>>>>    1. create milestones for *pulp-3.0*, *pulp-3.4*, *pulp-3.5*, and
>>>>    *pulp-3.6* (thinking both ahead and behind a little)
>>>>    2. create a *Katello* tag
>>>>    3. anything in MODIFIED gets the *3.3* milestone.
>>>>    4. Remaining open katello-P2 issues get a *3.4* milestone.
>>>>    5. Remaining open katello-P3 issues get a *3.5* milestone
>>>>    6. open *Katello-P1* issues get a *High* priority
>>>>    7. all other open issues get a *Normal* priority
>>>>    8. closed Katello-PX issues get the *3.0 *milestone
>>>>    9. tag all Katello-PX issues, open or closed, with *Katello*
>>>>    10. remove all Katello-PX tags on anything open or closed
>>>>    11. This will leave us with 29 open issues using the new process, *which
>>>>    will need Priority and Milestone triage*
>>>>
>>>> Does that catch everything we want from this, going forward? I'd like a
>>>> quick turnaround here so we can make sure we are working on 3.4 items in
>>>> the right order.
>>>>
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 6:47 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nitpick but I would use 'Katello' to be consistent with other tags.
>>>>>> And agreed that we should remove the Katello P tags. Other than that, LGTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:42 PM Justin Sherrill <jsherril at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 to all of this!
>>>>>>> On 4/8/20 12:35 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for writing this up and sending! My only addition would be to
>>>>>>> also remove the P1, P2, P3 tags entirely after setting all tagged issues
>>>>>>> with 'katello' and setting their priorities based on the previous P1/P2/P3
>>>>>>> label.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:32 PM Grant Gainey <ggainey at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As part of working with the katello upstream, we have been using a
>>>>>>>> mechanism for prioritizing pulp-issues in order to help keep the Katello
>>>>>>>> Gang unblocked. We have been using the 'Tags' field in an issue, and
>>>>>>>> marking things as Katello-P1/2/3, with P1 being "blocker for the next
>>>>>>>> release".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As we move through releases, this is starting to break down - last
>>>>>>>> release's P2 is this release's P1. This was brought up for discussion in
>>>>>>>> today's integration meeting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In order to continue being able to prioritize work, we're proposing
>>>>>>>> a change to the process to make it more sustainable as releases go on. I
>>>>>>>> *think* I have captured the proposal effectively below - if I've missed
>>>>>>>> something vital, I'm sure someone who was in the meeting will expand on it:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    - tag katello-related issues as 'katello'
>>>>>>>>    - use the milestone field to define the
>>>>>>>>    planned-pulp-release-version
>>>>>>>>    - use the Priority field to mark how important it is, *to
>>>>>>>>    katello*, to fix a bug NOW, as opposed to 'the day before the release is
>>>>>>>>    cut' (which in practice is likely to be  'blockers are critical, everything
>>>>>>>>    else is normal')
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This will make it easy to query redmine in a way that returns a
>>>>>>>> properly-ordered list, without some human having to go through and
>>>>>>>> group-change tags on multiple issues at once.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would appreciate more eyes on this, and especially input on what I
>>>>>>>> might have missed. We'd like to switch 'soon', so feedback before, say next
>>>>>>>> Wednesday 15-APR would be great!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Grant Gainey
>>>>>>>> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing listPulp-dev at redhat.comhttps://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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Grant Gainey
>>>> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Grant Gainey
>> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
>>
>

-- 
Grant Gainey
Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200423/f54f9270/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list