Re: [Pulp-dev] Dealing with our redmine backlog

We talked this over some more today at the pulpcore meeting. I think we're going to instead go through the issues and close them out manually. I've scheduled a 2 hour session for a week from Monday. Please send me an email if you'd like to attend. David On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:47 PM David

Re: [Pulp-dev] When to declare Pulp safe for multi-user?

I am in favor of the idea to declare plugins one-by-one as they can be. Also +1 to adding the column on the plugin list on pulpproject.org here . I like these ideas better than what I suggested because it doesn't push

[Pulp-dev] pulpcore 3.7 tentative release date -- Sept 22nd

This was discussed at open floor today. ___ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev

[Pulp-dev] Pulpcore team meeting notes

## August 18, 2020 ### Previous action items * None ### Topics * Grooming the backlog? * https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/issues?status_id=1 * Remove pulpcore items from sprint? * https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/issues?query_id=150 * How should the UI update a Distribution

Re: [Pulp-dev] github checklist as a part of the release process

Big +1. I really like this idea and believe it could help us organize the work for releases. How we can apply this to Pulp though? We don't use github issues and there's no way to template checklists for redmine issues AFAICT. David On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 9:55 AM Fabricio Aguiar wrote: > I

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal: Basic Functional Test Requirement with each Feature or Bugfix

I think we can do silly automation in one specific plugin, after some trial, expand the idea or not: pulpcore on  6844 [$] via  v3.8.0 (venv) ❯ git diff --name-only master CHANGES/6844.feature functest_requirements.txt setup.py pulpcore on  6844 [$] via  v3.8.0 (venv) took 2s ❯ git diff

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal: Basic Functional Test Requirement with each Feature or Bugfix

+1 from me. One of the problems I foresee though is that this could make cherry picking difficult if we have tests that depend on other tests. For example, suppose you have change A that adds some tests and then change B adds some tests on top of A's tests. It'll make cherry picking B without A

Re: [Pulp-dev] github checklist as a part of the release process

I like the idea, maybe it is possible to automate when closing the issue, triggering a github action Best regards, Fabricio Aguiar Software Engineer, Pulp Project Red Hat Brazil - Latam +55 11 999652368 On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:55 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko wrote: > I

[Pulp-dev] github checklist as a part of the release process

I learned recently how Fedora CoreOS folks do their releases and I really like their process. I think something similar can be useful for Pulp. We already have ~15 steps in our release guide and it's without some pre/post-release steps,

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal: Basic Functional Test Requirement with each Feature or Bugfix

+1 On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:39 AM Pavel Picka wrote: > > Big +1 to require (at least) one basic/positive functional test if possible. > Maybe we can set up a review checklist (contains 'check for basic test'). > > We already have some docs which we can update a bit [0] to be yet more plugin >

Re: [Pulp-dev] Proposal: Basic Functional Test Requirement with each Feature or Bugfix

Big +1 to require (at least) one basic/positive functional test if possible. Maybe we can set up a review checklist (contains 'check for basic test'). We already have some docs which we can update a bit [0] to be yet more plugin writer friendly and point back to it from plugins' docs. Like