Also, has Rat been run against 2.0? How does that look? On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Dave Neuman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey All, > We had some great discussion about the 2.0 release at the summit, I was > wondering if anyone had a summary of that discussion and a list of what's > left to do that could be added to this thread? I think we discussed that > we were going to take another look at 2.0 and see if it is a viable release > that we should move forward with, is that everyone else's understanding as > well? > Does anyone know of any showstopper issues that still exist? > > Thanks, > Dave > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Update: >> - License issue has been fixed- Thanks Rob! >> - Postinstall script is broken, Jeff and Dan are looking at it. >> >> Once post install is fixed, I will cut an RC >> >> —Eric >> >> >> >> > On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Dewayne Richardson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Robert Butts <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> +1 >> >> I didn't realize it was new. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Dan Kirkwood <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:43 AM, David Neuman < >> [email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> Since the Cookie Jar functionality is new to 2.0 and 2.0 is not yet >> >>>> released, why don't we just remove the `ResumeSession` method all >> >>> together >> >>>> and eliminate the dependency? Otherwise we are deprecating something >> >>> that >> >>>> we never formally released. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Robert Butts < >> [email protected] >> >>> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Regarding `TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license issue`: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It looks like the persistent cookie jar is only needed by Traffic >> Ops >> >>>>> Client `ResumeSession(toURL string, insecure bool) (*Session, >> error)`. >> >>>>> Nothing in Traffic Control uses `ResumeSession`, and I doubt anyone >> >>> else is >> >>>>> using it. Because it returns an error, and persisted cookies have >> >>>>> lifetimes, any current users already must handle errors from >> persisted >> >>>>> cookies being expired. Thus, we can change it to always return an >> >> error >> >>>>> with only degraded performance (and not much, login is cheap), >> without >> >>> loss >> >>>>> of functionality. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> To fix TC-119, I propose we document `ResumeSession` as deprecated, >> >> and >> >>>>> change it to always return an error, which lets us remove the >> >>> dependency, >> >>>>> without the development cost of writing our own persistent cookie >> >> store >> >>>>> that no one is using. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Any objections? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeremy Mitchell < >> >> [email protected]> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> These all got fixed and backported to 2.0: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” >> >>>>>> TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig >> >>>>>> TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> So Jan and Dave just need to close the issues. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Jeffrey Martin < >> >>> [email protected] >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Eric, >> >>>>>>> I was going to address the immediate Postinstall issues TC-185. I >> >> am >> >>>>> way >> >>>>>>> late on this. I created a fork yesterday, need to run a couple of >> >>> tests >> >>>>>> and >> >>>>>>> then I can push to this fork. >> >>>>>>> Jeff Martin >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >> >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> We have some release blockers for 2.0. Specifically: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license issue >> >>>>>>>> We cannot ship with Category-X LGPL software, so I’m waiting >> >>> for >> >>>>>> this >> >>>>>>>> to be resolved before cutting a release branch >> >>>>>>>> "TC-185 post install doesn’t run due to missing perl module” >> >>>>>>>> We shouldn’t ship a release in which the install process is >> >>>>> broken >> >>>>>> in >> >>>>>>>> this way. >> >>>>>>>> *There’s no assignee yet for this, any volunteers?* >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I think if we can get those two taken care of we can cut an RC0 >> >>> later >> >>>>>>> this >> >>>>>>>> week. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Major bugs we will ship with (unless someone objects): >> >>>>>>>> TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” >> >>>>>>>> TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig >> >>>>>>>> TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> —Eric >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Dave Neuman <[email protected]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Good question. I would also like to see us try to get some >> >>> release >> >>>>>>>>> candidates out for 2.0. I am pretty sure the actual install >> >> and >> >>>>>>>>> postinstall need work. There are also a couple of issue that >> >>> are >> >>>>>> still >> >>>>>>>>> assigned to 2.0 and unresolved: >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TC/fixforversion/ >> >>>>>>>> 12338562/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects- >> >>>>>>>> plugin:version-summary-panel >> >>>>>>>>> . >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Jan van Doorn < >> >> [email protected] >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> When are we planning to release 2.0? We at Comcast are >> >> running >> >>>>> what >> >>>>>> we >> >>>>>>>>>> call 2.0…. So we are +1, I am pretty sure. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Eric: are you waiting for something? Which cats need herding? >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Rgds, >> >>>>>>>>>> JvD >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >
