That's in 2.189 from https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4124

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:17 AM Mark Waite <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> Which Jenkins weekly is the first version that includes plugin install 
> batching?
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:11 AM Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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/CAO49JtGSU1sLaq0Nf9h5ZEVZ76HEOENj2jUyYn5iGzodxydoZw%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/CAEot4oy55RoNjtmeam8nhhOXYuQ2QBSfKt30kQi_48591b2M1w%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to