|
| 1 | +# Issue Migration Audit |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Summary |
| 4 | +- **Total Issues**: 96 |
| 5 | +- **Open Issues**: ~80 |
| 6 | +- **Closed Issues**: ~16 |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +## Issue Categories |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +### By Type: |
| 11 | +- **Features**: 45 issues - Implementation of new commands/functionality |
| 12 | +- **Tests**: 21 issues - Test coverage improvements |
| 13 | +- **Chores**: 8 issues - Maintenance and refactoring |
| 14 | +- **Documentation**: 4 issues - Documentation improvements |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +### By Platform: |
| 17 | +- **Cloud API**: ~40% of issues |
| 18 | +- **Enterprise API**: ~40% of issues |
| 19 | +- **CLI/General**: ~20% of issues |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +## Migration Strategy |
| 22 | + |
| 23 | +### ✅ **KEEP** - Issues to Migrate (High Value) |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +#### Architecture & Design Issues: |
| 26 | +- #109: Generate Protocol Buffer Definitions (NEW - already in personal repo) |
| 27 | +- #87: CLI Architecture Redesign - Tracking Issue |
| 28 | +- #85: CLI Phase 4: Advanced Workflow Features |
| 29 | +- #84: CLI Phase 3: Implement Core Workflow Commands |
| 30 | +- #83: CLI Phase 2: Human-Friendly Commands (likely closed) |
| 31 | +- #82: CLI Phase 1: Raw API Access (likely closed) |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +#### High-Priority Feature Implementations: |
| 34 | +- Cloud API command implementations (database, backup, ACL, etc.) |
| 35 | +- Enterprise API command implementations (cluster, node, user, etc.) |
| 36 | +- Workflow commands for common operations |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +### ⚠️ **REVIEW** - Selectively Migrate |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +#### Test Coverage Issues (#93-108): |
| 41 | +These are valuable but numerous. Options: |
| 42 | +1. Create a single "Improve Test Coverage" meta-issue |
| 43 | +2. Track in a project board instead |
| 44 | +3. Keep as-is but lower priority |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +**Recommendation**: Create one meta-issue: "Achieve 80% test coverage across all handlers" |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +### ❌ **SKIP** - Don't Migrate |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +#### Internal/Completed Issues: |
| 51 | +- Issues specific to Redis internal workflows |
| 52 | +- Already completed Phase 1 & 2 issues |
| 53 | +- Issues referencing internal systems or people |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +## Recommended Migration Approach |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +### Option 1: Fresh Start (Recommended) |
| 58 | +Create new, consolidated issues in personal repo: |
| 59 | +1. **"Roadmap: Complete API Coverage"** - Track remaining unimplemented endpoints |
| 60 | +2. **"Roadmap: Test Coverage"** - Achieve 80% coverage target |
| 61 | +3. **"Roadmap: Workflow Commands"** - High-level operations |
| 62 | +4. **"Roadmap: Documentation"** - Comprehensive docs |
| 63 | +5. **"Feature: Protocol Buffer Definitions"** - Already created |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +### Option 2: Selective Migration |
| 66 | +Use GitHub's issue transfer feature for ~10-15 high-value issues: |
| 67 | +- Major architecture issues |
| 68 | +- Roadmap tracking issues |
| 69 | +- High-priority features |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +### Option 3: Full Migration |
| 72 | +Transfer all open issues (not recommended - too much noise) |
| 73 | + |
| 74 | +## New Issues to Create |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +After migration, create these fresh issues for public repo: |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | +1. **"Help Wanted: First Good Issues"** - Label easy starter tasks |
| 79 | +2. **"Feature Request: Your Ideas"** - Community input |
| 80 | +3. **"Documentation: Examples Needed"** - Real-world usage examples |
| 81 | +4. **"Testing: Platform Coverage"** - Windows/Mac/Linux testing |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +## Action Items |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +1. [ ] Close completed issues in old repo |
| 86 | +2. [ ] Create roadmap issues in new repo |
| 87 | +3. [ ] Add README section pointing to new repo |
| 88 | +4. [ ] Archive old repository after migration |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +## Issue Templates for New Repo |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +### Bug Report Template |
| 93 | +```yaml |
| 94 | +name: Bug Report |
| 95 | +about: Report a bug in redisctl |
| 96 | +labels: bug |
| 97 | +body: |
| 98 | + - type: input |
| 99 | + label: Version |
| 100 | + placeholder: "0.1.0" |
| 101 | + - type: dropdown |
| 102 | + label: Platform |
| 103 | + options: [Cloud, Enterprise, Both] |
| 104 | + - type: textarea |
| 105 | + label: Description |
| 106 | +``` |
| 107 | +
|
| 108 | +### Feature Request Template |
| 109 | +```yaml |
| 110 | +name: Feature Request |
| 111 | +about: Suggest a new feature |
| 112 | +labels: enhancement |
| 113 | +body: |
| 114 | + - type: dropdown |
| 115 | + label: Category |
| 116 | + options: [CLI, Cloud API, Enterprise API, Documentation] |
| 117 | + - type: textarea |
| 118 | + label: Description |
| 119 | +``` |
| 120 | +
|
| 121 | +## Decision Required |
| 122 | +
|
| 123 | +Which migration approach do you prefer? |
| 124 | +1. **Fresh Start** - Clean slate, new focused issues |
| 125 | +2. **Selective** - Transfer ~10-15 key issues |
| 126 | +3. **Full** - Transfer everything |
| 127 | +
|
| 128 | +**My Recommendation**: Fresh Start with consolidated roadmap issues. It's cleaner for a public repo and less overwhelming for potential contributors. |
0 commit comments