We started working on a plan to move repos over to Github Issues after PulpCon last year but I think it kind of fell by the wayside over the past few months due to how busy we've been with stakeholder work. It would definitely be a requirement in my mind to sort out things like how to link BZs to issues before moving plugins and other repos over to Gihub Issues that might have issues that affect downstream.
There is a way to view issues across the entire Pulp org in Github[0] but it's not great. Definitely not as good as the redmine issue search. We should figure out if it'll meet our needs and if not, find a solution that will. [0] https://github.com/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+archived%3Afalse+user%3Apulp+ David On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:42 AM Grant Gainey <ggai...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 6:48 AM Ina Panova <ipan...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 7:55 PM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Wanted to bump this to hopefully get some feedback. Also, today during >>> our CI/CD meeting we discussed also tracking issues for pulp-oci-images on >>> github as well. >>> >>> If there are no objections by next week April 26, I'll assume I can >>> proceed with moving these projects' issues over to Github. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >> I have no objections regarding moving plugin_template and pulp-oci-images >> to github. >> >> The question I have is - what is our long term goal? Do we aim to >> eventually move all of the projects from pulp.plan.io? I know there were >> discussions in the past but we have not found a solution on how to connect >> issues with downstream trackers. The concern I have, if we don't have such >> plan, then we might have plugins' issue tracking scattered between >> plan.io and github where users, as a result, will file issues in the >> redmine and then we will need to whether ask them to open a github issue or >> do it ourselves. >> We just had a python issue filed in the redmine last week. >> > > This is a good point. I just looked at bugzilla, and 'Github' is listed as > one of the Systems you can "Add Link" to. We'd (obviously) need to modify > the linking/state-change-scripts. The complicating issues I can see there, > are a) not having moved *all* the projects to github, so some BZs would > want links to redmine and some to github, and b) being able to get "all" > the issues - in redmine, I can go to pulp.plan.io/issues and see all the > issues for every project, not sure we can get something equivalent from > github. > > G > > >> >>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 8:38 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I've always felt that tracking plugin_template issues under the main >>>> pulp project in plan.io was suboptimal and with other repos such as >>>> pulp-cli moving to github issues, I feel that it might make sense for the >>>> plugin_template to move to github issues as well. >>>> >>>> There's only 11 open issues right now in pulp.plan.io? for the >>>> plugin_template so I think it would be an easy move. I'd propose we also >>>> remove the plugin_template tag from the list of options (but keep it on old >>>> issues for history). >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > > > -- > Grant Gainey > Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
