Hi Oliver,

Could you please let us know what is your decision about the LTS baseline?

Thanks in advance,
Oleg

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:59:11 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> +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] <javascript:>.
>>> 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/3e3f2c23-1089-4230-b54d-9dfa3ed2b146%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to