I'd really love to see the plugin install batching feature integrated into LTS as that comes up a _lot_ during local testing, especially whenever I work on security fixes for Jenkins as we use LTS branches for development there.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:09 AM Mark Waite <[email protected]> wrote: > > I hope to spend some hours investigating those two after work today > (JENKINS-58938 and JENKINS-58912). I'm traveling so have less access to my > environment, but will spend some time trying to duplicate the issue and > identify the change which caused it. > > 2.187 seems reasonable, assuming the security fix is backported. Would the > fix to those two issues be a critical factor in choosing 2.190 instead? > 2.190 does not have remoting 3.34, so it avoids that regression. > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:00 AM Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates JENKINS-58912 / >> JENKINS-58938 and clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am >> fine with 190. Cannot commit to investigate it unfortunately >> >> There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job names >> (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin installation >> parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup Experience), security >> hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could help LTS >> users. >> >> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote: >>> >>> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel that >>> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark >>> leans that way. >>> >>> Any other inputs? >>> >>> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote: >>> > 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 >>> > <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 >>> > <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] >>> > <mailto:[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 >>> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/8346a1c4-ca52-4f6f-b89a-f00bb0eb48e2%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/f36d1d5c-4d1d-42a2-bdfe-f364fea457c2%40googlegroups.com. > > > > -- > 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/CAO49JtGeGsjwX7vfYBFuVfNNEfgEUk8sVAmcNqZS5%3DmifGAiNg%40mail.gmail.com. -- Matt Sicker Senior Software Engineer, CloudBees -- 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/CAEot4oxEuFJm1%2BqqufyTcbduw9ZLyUW3a4qz_bk1w5%2BZ%3DFjNdQ%40mail.gmail.com.
