+1 from me to choose 2.190 as the baseline. On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > > 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 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/f09de5ca-d9ef-428f-89bb-ff3704c1728d%40googlegroups.com.
