the postinstall changes weren't trivial -- in 2.1,  it also includes
rearranging the way seeds.sql is handled,  so there are a number of
files involved in backporting to 2.0.   I'll take a deeper look and
see if it looks viable.

-dan

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri)
<[email protected]> wrote:
> There is an issue that Jeff E will take care of later this week that is a 
> showstopper.
>
> Also Dan was going to look into seeing if we needed more post 
> install/postgres fixes back ported to 2.0.x so it could be useful.
>
> —Eric
>
>
>
>> On 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Reply via email to