i want to do some testing down the fresh install path to see what needs to
be backported, hopefully this week.

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:02 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