Great to see the fix! https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 can be trivially backported, so I think we can go ahead with 2.190 as a baseline.
BR, Oleg On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:54 PM Mark Waite <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:00:13 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote: >> >> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates JENKINS-58912 >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.jenkins-ci.org%2Fbrowse%2FJENKINS-58912&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG-zP4KRD2k95IS6rp2N1UtzSnNPw> >> / JENKINS-58938 <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/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. >> >> > Gabriel Lavoie has submitted a pull request to fix those two issues. The > pull request is at https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 and is > related to the slow trigger monitor that was first released in 2.189. > > I haven't yet been able to interactively verify the problem myself, but am > thrilled that Gabriel was able to do so and that a pull request has been > submitted. > > That change leads me towards favoring 2.187, before that admin monitor was > added. I could be persuaded otherwise (especially considering the security > fix that was announced for today), assuming we also have a fix for the > remoting issue that was reported as > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094 > > Mark Waite > > >> 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jenkinsci-dev/FM8_kG1kdw8/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/dfd3af58-7ed1-4849-8cd1-0c55ff9010a3%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/dfd3af58-7ed1-4849-8cd1-0c55ff9010a3%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAPfivLAOeMJ8po9c2EqPhg5ffS3zNbN7_nvi7sMt_Ujt1S0Y5w%40mail.gmail.com.
