Re: [DISCUSS] Time for Jenkins to require Java 8 to run

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:08 AM, ogondza wrote: > is JDK 7 support really blocking us somewhere? Bugs > we cannot fix / need to awkwardly compensate, features we can not deliver on > Java 7? Of course not. It just slows down developers trying to work on new things in the name

Re: PR and release pending. Reverse Proxy Auth. Plugin

Hello, this is not exactly how it works. Please make sure to show you've tried to contact existing/previous maintainers. Adding her/them/him in CC (better look at latest commits than at the wiki page, this last one is almost always wrong...) I've adjusted the documentation a bit here:

Re: Failed to reload configuration of Folder property after Jenkins restart

Izek, do you see your configuration in the files? Anything in the log files? On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 2:12:59 PM UTC+2, Izek Greenfield wrote: > > When I save the configuration of the folder and reload it all is ok and it > loads the configuration > > but if I restart the Jenknis

Re: PR and release pending. Reverse Proxy Auth. Plugin

Hello, There are two PR waiting for merge some weeks/month ago... https://github.com/jenkinsci/reverse-proxy-auth-plugin/pull/29 https://github.com/jenkinsci/reverse-proxy-auth-plugin/pull/28 I have asked to the maintainer at PR and here at the group for merging the code. As I had no replies,

Failed to reload configuration of Folder property after Jenkins restart

When I save the configuration of the folder and reload it all is ok and it loads the configuration but if I restart the Jenknis instance it does not reload the configuration I see the new configuration config.xml file. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Thanks for commit access and the information. Nothing opposed to a fork so lets go with that route to simplify things. The people whom I will be sharing work with are colleagues so we can share a fork and keep things separate. Really appreciate all the help. > On 1 Dec 2016, at 13.19, Daniel

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

> On 01.12.2016, at 12:13, Jacob Larfors wrote: > > Awesome - looks good. Can I also have commit access to this one, or how do we > plan to do this? > > My plan was to create an update branch on this repo and then file a pull > request to get this into master and include

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Awesome - looks good. Can I also have commit access to this one, or how do we plan to do this? My plan was to create an update branch on this repo and then file a pull request to get this into master and include the Jenkins reviewers as Oleg suggested. GitHub user: jlarfors Sent from my

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

> On 01.12.2016, at 11:34, Jacob Larfors wrote: > > All good to delete the jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin-fork repo as it was never > used. Done, and transferred the one with issues and PRs: https://github.com/jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin -- You received this message because you

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

All good to delete the jenkinsci/klocwork-plugin-fork repo as it was never used. On Thursday, 1 December 2016 12:32:59 UTC+2, Daniel Beck wrote: > > > > On 01.12.2016, at 11:17, Jacob Larfors > wrote: > > > > Great, I acknowledge and sounds like a good idea - so please

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

> On 01.12.2016, at 11:17, Jacob Larfors wrote: > > Great, I acknowledge and sounds like a good idea - so please go ahead. Hmmm that didn't work… "jenkinsci already has a repository in the jenkinsci-transfer/klocwork-plugin network" It looks like I'll have to delete the

Re: Request ownership/action for a plugin (klocwork)

Great, I acknowledge and sounds like a good idea - so please go ahead. Thanks, Jacob On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 21:03:00 UTC+2, Daniel Beck wrote: > > > > On 28.11.2016, at 17:44, Jacob Larfors > wrote: > > > > Awesome, and thanks Daniel & Gregory. > > We have

Re: [DISCUSS] Time for Jenkins to require Java 8 to run

The plan looks good to me. I'm also thinking about dropping the .NET 2.0 support in Windows installer and windows-slave-installer. If we drop Java 7, I would like to join the party and to announce the .NET2 and 3.5 deprecation and selection of .NET4 as a baseline. .NET 4 is 5 years old &&

Re: [DISCUSS] Time for Jenkins to require Java 8 to run

I am undecided on the subject. There clearly always are reasons to use newer/better version but is JDK 7 support really blocking us somewhere? Bugs we cannot fix / need to awkwardly compensate, features we can not deliver on Java 7? I felt much stronger against dropping Java 6 as we identified