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 <bbout...@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 <omp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 05-Apr-2019, at 8:53 PM, Robin Chan <rc...@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 <davidda...@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 <dkli...@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 <bkear...@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 <rc...@redhat.com >>>>> > <mailto:rc...@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 < >>>>> bbout...@redhat.com >>>>> > <mailto:bbout...@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Austin Macdonald >>>>> > <aus...@redhat.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> >>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> >>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com> >>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> > Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto: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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev