I think we can continue weekly releases on Sunday/Monday as usual. We have
restored the CI (see
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/v9d-XosOp2s) and
integrated a bunch of changes, so we have something for the next weekly
releases.
On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 8:18:24 AM
OK. Thanks for the heads-up
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 23:09 Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> Thanks for the release Kohsuke!
> 2.188 looks OK according to JIRA and community stats.
>
> Regarding the today's weekly, I think we can skip it. ci.jenkins.io has
> been unstable since Monday, and I do not feel
Thanks for the release Kohsuke!
2.188 looks OK according to JIRA and community stats.
Regarding the today's weekly, I think we can skip it. ci.jenkins.io has
been unstable since Monday, and I do not feel confident about integrating
changes while the maintainers bandwidth is saturated by DW-JW.
I think 2.189 finally went through.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:57 AM Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
> Yep, still investigating. I'm burning 2.188 and moving to 2.189.
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:41 AM Oleg Nenashev
> wrote:
>
>> It looks like the new release attempt did not go well
>> There was
>>
Yep, still investigating. I'm burning 2.188 and moving to 2.189.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:41 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> It looks like the new release attempt did not go well
> There was
> https://repo.jenkins-ci.org/snapshots/org/jenkins-ci/main/jenkins-war/2.188-SNAPSHOT/
> deployed this night,
It looks like the new release attempt did not go well
There was
https://repo.jenkins-ci.org/snapshots/org/jenkins-ci/main/jenkins-war/2.188-SNAPSHOT/
deployed this night, and the release is not there so far.
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 8:24:32 PM UTC+2, Jesse Glick wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 6,
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:12 PM Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> Should we just mark the method as `@Restricted(NoExternalUse.class)` in JTH
> so that all production build fail by default?
Would have no effect—access modifiers are ignored in test sources.
--
You received this message because you are
Up to you --- I just came up with another suggestion, but whatever works
for you is fine by me.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:12 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> Should we just mark the method as `@Restricted(NoExternalUse.class)` in
> JTH so that all production build fail by default?
> This method is IMO
I was referring to your attempt to reproduce this earlier this thread.
My guess on why this passes the CI is that it runs in an environment where
stdin is /dev/null, which I suspect will make interactiveBreak() a no-op.
When I run a release or "mvn test" from a terminal, it actually does block.
Should we just mark the method as `@Restricted(NoExternalUse.class)` in JTH
so that all production build fail by default?
This method is IMO dangerous by default
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 6:04 PM Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> Oleg, how does this test pass for you (and presumably the CI system that
>>
>
> Oleg, how does this test pass for you (and presumably the CI system that
> gated this change) with the interactiveBreak invocation intact?
>
I do not run tests locally when integrating changes, I rely on CI.
And CI was green, not sure why.
The issue itself came from
I created https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4142 to get us past
this blockage.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 8:42 AM Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
> Thanks Lloyd. With Surefire 2.20.1, the error message changes more
> explicitly to timeout:
>
Thanks Lloyd. With Surefire 2.20.1, the error message changes more
explicitly to timeout:
https://gist.github.com/kohsuke/4d31b8dbcbfe1926e71ccba08f7f9555
The test case in question includes an invocation of 'interactiveBreak',
which is surely wrong? When I remove that line, the test passes.
clarification: the quoted version number "2.20.1" was Surefire, and not
Jenkins.
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 12:36:21 AM UTC-7, Lloyd Chang wrote:
>
> > We have it fixed in 2.20.1.
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1408
>
> On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 11:54:30 PM UTC-7, Oleg
> We have it fixed in 2.20.1.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1408
On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 11:54:30 PM UTC-7, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>
> I was unable to reproduce it locally on Maven 3.6.0 and Windows.
> Would it be possible to provide a crashdump?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
I was unable to reproduce it locally on Maven 3.6.0 and Windows.
Would it be possible to provide a crashdump?
Thanks in advance,
Oleg
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 6:53:57 AM UTC+2, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
>
> Currently the release of 2.188 is stuck due to a failing
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
