https://issues.jenkins.io/browse/JENKINS-66139 / https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/5621 that made it into 2.304 fixes a bug and should be eligible for backporting (it was missed as the issue was not closed and missing the tag).
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:04:41 AM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > I do not think that this should go into the LTS. I would have been a -1 > earlier on the PR itself had seen the PR but well that bird has flown (and > I left a comment in the PR as to why). > > The LTS was selected a while ago, there has been a not insignificant > amount of work done in preparation for this. I do not believe that this PR > warrants a backport so late into the process. > > /James > > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 9:44:25 AM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: > >> I agree the diff seems reasonably small between 2.302 and 2.303. >> Still, we are re-running our CloudBees testsuite on the 2.303 to assess >> the impact, if any. Stay tuned. >> >> Le mer. 11 août 2021 à 10:09, Tim Jacomb <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >>> I think we can switch the baseline to newer? Either way I think it's >>> fine to include the above change. >>> >>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 08:00, Basil Crow <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 11:28 PM Daniel Beck <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Core dependency version number semantics means anyone on a weekly >>>> release after the LTS baseline but before the change made it into core >>>> regularly, will not have that API and plugins will fail while appearing >>>> compatible. >>>> >>>> Ah right, I hadn't considered that. >>>> >>>> > Given that only dependency updates went into 2.303, there's also an >>>> argument for us to choose that as the new baseline instead of 2.302; >>>> eliminating the above problem entirely without adding a lot of risk >>>> through >>>> unproven changes (I would expect commons-compress and spring-security >>>> updates to be safe enough). >>>> >>>> If it isn't too late to switch to 2.303, that sounds ideal to me. I >>>> can easily update the BOM line. But I don't feel strongly either way. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/CAFwNDjoS1MQP3LzjcXDkETPc9MjoMv10yd6ZLKcPekZsawNcDA%40mail.gmail.com >>>> . >>>> >>> -- >>> 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/CAH-3BidRD5GC1cv%2BPzkcZJ%3DSVwxf93%2B%2B7_ckGWRCQb12y-K2_A%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAH-3BidRD5GC1cv%2BPzkcZJ%3DSVwxf93%2B%2B7_ckGWRCQb12y-K2_A%40mail.gmail.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/b9ab65f7-a3fd-4fd4-bb2c-c8aa8ef99ba8n%40googlegroups.com.
