On 20 February 2013 16:52, Stephen Connolly <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > > On 20 February 2013 16:43, Les Mikesell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Fisher, Allen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > OK. I need some more help and to let a small rant loose. >> >> I agree on the rant - not so much on the choice to fix a security >> problem, but certainly about communicating the fact that updating >> _will break_ working systems and documenting how to make them work >> again. I can sort-of understand this on the trunk releases, but >> what's the point of having an LTS version here? >> > > The whole point of LTS is to give you something where only *critical bugs* > and *security* fixes are applied during the life of the LTS. All other > changes are left for the next LTS. > > Oh and I agree that the changelog should have had a link to the security advisory on the wiki, so that people would have been more aware of the changes required. I raised this with KK. > >> > I’ve tried all the suggestions mentioned here[1] and here[2] and I >> cannot >> > get Jenkins to control the slaves via something other than JNLP. When I >> try >> > to run as a service I get: >> > >> > Connecting to winslave.mygreatcompany.com >> > >> > ERROR: Access is denied. See >> > >> http://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Windows+slaves+fail+to+start+via+DCOM >> > for more information about how to resolve this. >> >> I haven't gotten a win2008 box to work that way either. Does anyone >> know if you could use Cygwin or freeSSHd on windows boxes and make it >> work like linux? >> >> > >> > Now for my rant… What we had set up with JNLP as a windows service >> worked >> > really well. It made new boxes easy to configure and we’ve had very few >> > problems with it. I’m going to switch our Macs to SSH, which I’ve been >> > meaning to do anyway. While I appreciate the need and effort to address >> > security concerns, there’s got to be an option missing, whether that be >> > restore the old functionality as an option (which we would be fine with >> us >> > since we’re quite nicely situated behind a firewall), or a way to >> connect >> > that doesn’t require that the token be different each and every time. >> >> If you are using matrix authorization, have you tried allowing >> anonymous slave connect/disconnect? >> >> -- >> Les Mikesell >> [email protected] >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Jenkins Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
