There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34 https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094
I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's security fix as a baseline. BR, Oleg On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote: > > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday. I did not find any immediate > reasons to reject it as the LTS. The security release scheduled for > Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer choosing 2.190 as a > baseline, then update to the security release as the baseline after it is > delivered. > > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in JENKINS-58912 and > JENKINS-58938. > > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project beginning in > 2.186. Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to duplicate it. The > KDE project found a workaround (install the symlinks plugin) and can't > really explore other options because it is their production system. > JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and later, so it seems relevant to > investigate further as a risk to any LTS version we select. > > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but JENKINS-58912 > and JENKINS-58938 need investigation before the LTS is released. > > Mark Waite > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev <o.v.n...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE for >> the mailing list selection process proposal. >> >> For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be >>> selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The conclusion >>> will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT >>> >> >> We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable, we could >> use it as a baseline. >> >> If we discuss only released versions https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189 >> has >> a pretty bad community rating. JENKINS-58912 >> <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-58912> / JENKINS-58938 >> <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-58938> looks to be a >> pretty bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated the issue so >> far. It is not clear when and why it happens. I am not sure we are safe to >> go into LTS with it. So 2.187 is my preference (2.188 was burned) >> >> BR, Oleg >> >> >> On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:00:47 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote: >>> >>> For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be >>> selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The conclusion >>> will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UTC time. Feel free >>> to share your thoughts here. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> I believe we affectively only have 2 candidates[1], 2.189 and 2.190. >>> Since 2.190 has relatively few changes in it, all minor, got 2 weeks of >>> soaking with nothing but positive community feedback, I vote to choose >>> that despite being the latest weekly published. >>> >>> [1] https://jenkins.io/changelog/ >>> >>> -- >>> oliver >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Jenkins Developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to jenkin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > > > -- > Thanks! > Mark Waite > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/8346a1c4-ca52-4f6f-b89a-f00bb0eb48e2%40googlegroups.com.
