[Pulp-dev] Pulp2 Bug Backlog Closing?
David Davis
daviddavis at redhat.com
Mon Apr 8 20:40:03 UTC 2019
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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190408/018dbf3f/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list