Recording of the first part: https://youtu.be/b67I6spBdTg . Join us at 2PM
UTC today for a second part!
Best regards,
Oleg
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 00:12 Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On Wednesday and Thursday we will have the project status updates and
> demos by the Jenkins' Google
Recording of the meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGQGaJyFe0I At
this meting we discussed the recent news (core release automation, next LTS
baseline, public roadmap), reviewed results of the "Jenkins master" term
replacement voting and next steps, CDF graduation status, Core
Hi Jesse,
thanks a lot for your comments; I hope the penny has dropped now (see
below...).
You were right -- there was still a `setResult(ABORTED)` call preceding the
exception in the plugin. This survives in pipeline mode buts gets
overwritten in a Freestyle project which caused the observed
Hi Everyone,
Just wanted to update on the current status of this effort. We discussed
this in the Governance Meeting yesterday. The poll closed yesterday, you
can see the results at:
https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_1bd92a17371a1ca5. They
are also shown below:
Result
1.
Thanks all!
I have added markewaite and slideomix accouns as owners in the *jenkins *and
*jenkins4eval *organizations. I have no access to the old *jenkinsci
*organization,
but AFAICT we do not have any active images there except Blue Ocean.
Best regards,
Oleg
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at
> On 29. Jul 2020, at 13:59, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>
> 2.250 is a fancy number, so why not?
As I previously explained, too similar to 2.150 which was also an LTS baseline.
Since there's no other notable difference to 2.249, I would prefer less
confusing bug reports over having a nice
I agree with Daniel that we should prefer 2.249 or consider 2.251 so that
we avoid confusion in bug reports. I also like that Ulli noted it
increases the Hamming distance. It has been a while since I thought about
Hamming codes.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:22 PM Daniel Beck wrote:
>
>
> > On
