agreed, le'ts not include sprint_candidate, instead we can re-open issues that need attention. for example, rpm and docker plugins created a list with issues we plan to re-open.
-------- Regards, Ina Panova Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:31 PM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > I amended the query from earlier to also include Sprint = None, which now > includes 1043 issues (at this time) http://tinyurl.com/y35ts4sg > > Regarding sprint_candidate=yes, there are 463 Pulp2 issues in that state. > If we disinclude those we'll still have an epic amount of Pulp2 issues open > in the tracker. Can we not include sprint candidate filtering and close > the 1043 issues from this query: http://tinyurl.com/y35ts4sg > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:09 AM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> +1 to excluding sprint candidates ... this should be a small number of >> issues >> >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 8:17 AM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> i also suggest to add to the query 'sprint candidate yes' so we don't >>> close the ones we plan to solve in the upcoming sprint/s. >>> wdyt? >>> >>> >>> -------- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ina Panova >>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>> >>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 1:16 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Brian, >>>> i think the query should have Sprint and Sprint/Milestone because >>>> plugins have the Sprint filter only. >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Ina Panova >>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>> >>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:38 PM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 i like the comment >>>>> +1 sending an email, so people can look and re-open if needed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Ina Panova >>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. >>>>> >>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead, >>>>> go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 6:37 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:19 AM Dennis Kliban <dkli...@redhat.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 11:12 AM Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for the feedback. Also, this is a great idea. Overall I >>>>>>>> think some helpful info on why this is being closed and what anyone >>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> do to reopen it would be good. This way anyone who does want to >>>>>>>> contribute >>>>>>>> still can and we are clear on that. What about if I leave the following >>>>>>>> comment on all items closed on Friday in the query? Please edit or +1 >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> send more ideas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---- comment start ---- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pulp 2 is approaching maintenance mode, and this Pulp 2 ticket is >>>>>>>> not being actively worked on. As such, it is being closed as WONTFIX. >>>>>>>> Pulp >>>>>>>> 2 is still accepting contributions though, so if you want to >>>>>>>> contribute a >>>>>>>> fix for this ticket, please reopen or comment on it. If you don't have >>>>>>>> permissions to reopen this ticket, or you want to discuss an issue, >>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>> reach out via the "developer mailing list": >>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- commend end ---- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That looks great to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:19 PM Tatiana Tereshchenko < >>>>>>>> ttere...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sounds good to me. >>>>>>>>> One suggestion. How about asking for a contribution before >>>>>>>>> closing, however only in cases when we expect to accept the >>>>>>>>> contribution? >>>>>>>>> e.g. not a huge or risky change, and the bug fix is important for >>>>>>>>> a reporter. >>>>>>>>> It will be clear for community that we are still willing to accept >>>>>>>>> contributions to Pulp 2 if they really need those changes. >>>>>>>>> Adding issues to the sprint usually indicates that Pulp core team >>>>>>>>> is working on them or there is already a PR opened. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tanya >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:18 PM Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In conversation with @kersom a question came up: How would Pulp2 >>>>>>>>>> bugs be handled in the future? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With Pulp2 approaching maintenance mode I think the general idea >>>>>>>>>> is that Pulp2 bugs can be filed, but unless they are added to the >>>>>>>>>> sprint >>>>>>>>>> during triage they would be closed WONTFIX with a note indicating >>>>>>>>>> Pulp2 is >>>>>>>>>> approaching maintenance mode. This is effectively the same process we >>>>>>>>>> already apply to Pulp2 bugs except that instead of sending to the >>>>>>>>>> Pulp2 >>>>>>>>>> backlog we close them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ideas and feedback is welcome! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:47 PM Brian Bouterse < >>>>>>>>>> bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks David! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here is a new query with that addition: >>>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yxqyto7q >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:40 PM David Davis < >>>>>>>>>>> davidda...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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
