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 <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Austin Macdonald <aus...@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 <aus...@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 <bbout...@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@redhat.com >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev