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 <[email protected] > <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 [email protected] <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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/8346a1c4-ca52-4f6f-b89a-f00bb0eb48e2%40googlegroups.com.
