Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[ogondza]

See the previous message: 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jenkinsci-dev/FM8_kG1kdw8/sIOvRmEeBQAJ

-- 
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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/a4ec1e7d-1264-48fb-b504-eafe0ebc1627%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Beatriz Munoz]

Hi all,

Could you please tell me if is there a decision about next LTS?

Thanks in advance

Bea

> El 29 ago 2019, a las 11:46, Oleg Nenashev  escribió:
> 
> Hi Oliver,
> 
> Could you please let us know what is your decision about the LTS baseline?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Oleg
> 
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:59:11 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
> +1 from me to choose 2.190 as the baseline.
> 
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> Great to see the fix!  https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 
>  can be trivially backported, 
> so I think we can go ahead with 2.190 as a baseline.
> 
> BR, Oleg
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:54 PM Mark Waite wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:00:13 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912 
> 
>  / JENKINS-58938  and 
> clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am fine with 190. Cannot 
> commit to investigate it unfortunately
> 
> There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job names 
> (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin installation 
> parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup Experience), security 
> hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could help LTS users.
> 
> 
> Gabriel Lavoie has submitted a pull request to fix those two issues.  The 
> pull request is at https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 
>  and is related to the slow 
> trigger monitor that was first released in 2.189.
> 
> I haven't yet been able to interactively verify the problem myself, but am 
> thrilled that Gabriel was able to do so and that a pull request has been 
> submitted.
> 
> That change leads me towards favoring 2.187, before that admin monitor was 
> added.  I could be persuaded otherwise (especially considering the security 
> fix that was announced for today), assuming we also have a fix for the 
> remoting issue that was reported as 
> https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094 
> 
> 
> Mark Waite
>  
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel that 
> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark 
> leans that way. 
> 
> Any other inputs? 
> 
> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote: 
> > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34 
> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094 
> >  
> > 
> > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's 
> > security fix as a baseline. 
> > 
> > BR, Oleg 
> > 
> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote: 
> > 
> > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any 
> > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release 
> > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer 
> > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security release as 
> > the baseline after it is delivered. 
> > 
> > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in 
> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938. 
> > 
> > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project 
> > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to 
> > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the 
> > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because it 
> > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and 
> > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to any 
> > LTS version we select. 
> > 
> > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but 
> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS 
> > is released. 
> > 
> > Mark Waite 
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev  
> > > wrote: 
> > 
> > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR 
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE 
> >  
> >  > > for 
> > the mailing list selection process proposal. 
> > 
> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be 
> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The 
> > conclusion 
> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th 

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Oliver Gondža]

Thank you folks (and Gabriel, especially), I am taking the 2.190 as the 
next LTS baseline.


On 29/08/2019 11.46, Oleg Nenashev wrote:

Hi Oliver,

Could you please let us know what is your decision about the LTS baseline?

Thanks in advance,
Oleg

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:59:11 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:

+1 from me to choose 2.190 as the baseline.

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:

Great to see the fix!
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176
 can be
trivially backported, so I think we can go ahead with 2.190 as a
baseline.

BR, Oleg


On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:54 PM Mark Waite wrote:



On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:00:13 AM UTC-4, Oleg
Nenashev wrote:

For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates
JENKINS-58912


 /
JENKINS-58938
 and
clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am
fine with 190. Cannot commit to investigate it unfortunately

There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji
support for job names (yey!) there are some more
meaningful changes like plugin installation
parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup
Experience), security hardening, install-plugin fixes,
and other changes which could help LTS users.


Gabriel Lavoie has submitted a pull request to fix those two
issues.  The pull request is at
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176
 and is
related to the slow trigger monitor that was first released
in 2.189.

I haven't yet been able to interactively verify the problem
myself, but am thrilled that Gabriel was able to do so and
that a pull request has been submitted.

That change leads me towards favoring 2.187, before that
admin monitor was added.  I could be persuaded otherwise
(especially considering the security fix that was announced
for today), assuming we also have a fix for the remoting
issue that was reported as
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094


Mark Waite

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2,
ogondza wrote:

So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for
LTS. I do not feel that
strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it
appears Oleg and Mark
leans that way.

Any other inputs?

On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
 > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191
/ Remoting 3.34
 >
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094

 >
 > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or
for the tomorrow's
 > security fix as a baseline.
 >
 > BR, Oleg
 >
 > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2,
Mark Waite wrote:
 >
 >     I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I
did not find any
 >     immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS. 
The security release

 >     scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a
good reason to prefer
 >     choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to
the security release as
 >     the baseline after it is delivered.
 >
 >     I haven't investigated the startup failures
reported in
 >     JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938.
 >
 >     I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from
the KDE project
 >     beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated
it and was unable to
 >     duplicate it.  The KDE project found a
workaround (install the
 >     symlinks plugin) 

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Oleg Nenashev]

Hi Oliver,

Could you please let us know what is your decision about the LTS baseline?

Thanks in advance,
Oleg

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:59:11 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> +1 from me to choose 2.190 as the baseline.
>
> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>>
>> Great to see the fix!  https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 can 
>> be trivially backported, so I think we can go ahead with 2.190 as a 
>> baseline.
>>
>> BR, Oleg
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:54 PM Mark Waite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:00:13 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:

 For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912 
 
  / JENKINS-58938  and 
 clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am fine with 190. 
 Cannot commit to investigate it unfortunately

 There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job 
 names (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin 
 installation parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup 
 Experience), 
 security hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could 
 help LTS users.


>>> Gabriel Lavoie has submitted a pull request to fix those two issues.  
>>> The pull request is at https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 and 
>>> is related to the slow trigger monitor that was first released in 2.189.
>>>
>>> I haven't yet been able to interactively verify the problem myself, but 
>>> am thrilled that Gabriel was able to do so and that a pull request has been 
>>> submitted.
>>>
>>> That change leads me towards favoring 2.187, before that admin monitor 
>>> was added.  I could be persuaded otherwise (especially considering the 
>>> security fix that was announced for today), assuming we also have a fix for 
>>> the remoting issue that was reported as 
>>> https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094
>>>
>>> Mark Waite
>>>  
>>>
 On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>
> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel 
> that 
> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark 
> leans that way. 
>
> Any other inputs? 
>
> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote: 
> > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34 
> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094 
> > 
> > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's 
> > security fix as a baseline. 
> > 
> > BR, Oleg 
> > 
> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote: 
> > 
> > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any 
> > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release 
> > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer 
> > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security 
> release as 
> > the baseline after it is delivered. 
> > 
> > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in 
> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938. 
> > 
> > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project 
> > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable 
> to 
> > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the 
> > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because 
> it 
> > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and 
> > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to 
> any 
> > LTS version we select. 
> > 
> > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but 
> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the 
> LTS 
> > is released. 
> > 
> > Mark Waite 
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev <
> o.v.n...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote: 
> > 
> > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR 
> > 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE <
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE> for 
>
> > the mailing list selection process proposal. 
> > 
> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we 
> will be 
> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. 
> The 
> > conclusion 
> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT 
> > 
> > 
> > We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is 
> stable, 
> >  

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Mark Waite]

+1 from me to choose 2.190 as the baseline.

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>
> Great to see the fix!  https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 can 
> be trivially backported, so I think we can go ahead with 2.190 as a 
> baseline.
>
> BR, Oleg
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:54 PM Mark Waite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:00:13 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>>>
>>> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912 
>>> 
>>>  / JENKINS-58938  and 
>>> clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am fine with 190. 
>>> Cannot commit to investigate it unfortunately
>>>
>>> There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job 
>>> names (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin 
>>> installation parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup Experience), 
>>> security hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could 
>>> help LTS users.
>>>
>>>
>> Gabriel Lavoie has submitted a pull request to fix those two issues.  The 
>> pull request is at https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 and is 
>> related to the slow trigger monitor that was first released in 2.189.
>>
>> I haven't yet been able to interactively verify the problem myself, but 
>> am thrilled that Gabriel was able to do so and that a pull request has been 
>> submitted.
>>
>> That change leads me towards favoring 2.187, before that admin monitor 
>> was added.  I could be persuaded otherwise (especially considering the 
>> security fix that was announced for today), assuming we also have a fix for 
>> the remoting issue that was reported as 
>> https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094
>>
>> Mark Waite
>>  
>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:

 So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel 
 that 
 strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark 
 leans that way. 

 Any other inputs? 

 On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote: 
 > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34 
 > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094 
 > 
 > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's 
 > security fix as a baseline. 
 > 
 > BR, Oleg 
 > 
 > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote: 
 > 
 > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any 
 > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release 
 > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer 
 > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security release 
 as 
 > the baseline after it is delivered. 
 > 
 > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in 
 > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938. 
 > 
 > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project 
 > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable 
 to 
 > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the 
 > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because 
 it 
 > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and 
 > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to 
 any 
 > LTS version we select. 
 > 
 > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but 
 > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the 
 LTS 
 > is released. 
 > 
 > Mark Waite 
 > 
 > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev >>> > > wrote: 
 > 
 > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR 
 > 
 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE <
 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE> for 
 > the mailing list selection process proposal. 
 > 
 > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we 
 will be 
 > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. 
 The 
 > conclusion 
 > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT 
 > 
 > 
 > We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is 
 stable, 
 > we could use it as a baseline. 
 > 
 > If we discuss only released versions 
 > https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189 
 >  has a pretty bad 
 > community rating. JENKINS-58912 
 >  / 

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Oleg Nenashev]

Great to see the fix!  https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 can
be trivially backported, so I think we can go ahead with 2.190 as a
baseline.

BR, Oleg


On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:54 PM Mark Waite 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:00:13 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>>
>> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912
>> 
>>  / JENKINS-58938  and
>> clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am fine with 190.
>> Cannot commit to investigate it unfortunately
>>
>> There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job
>> names (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin
>> installation parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup Experience),
>> security hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could
>> help LTS users.
>>
>>
> Gabriel Lavoie has submitted a pull request to fix those two issues.  The
> pull request is at https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 and is
> related to the slow trigger monitor that was first released in 2.189.
>
> I haven't yet been able to interactively verify the problem myself, but am
> thrilled that Gabriel was able to do so and that a pull request has been
> submitted.
>
> That change leads me towards favoring 2.187, before that admin monitor was
> added.  I could be persuaded otherwise (especially considering the security
> fix that was announced for today), assuming we also have a fix for the
> remoting issue that was reported as
> https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094
>
> Mark Waite
>
>
>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>>>
>>> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel that
>>> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark
>>> leans that way.
>>>
>>> Any other inputs?
>>>
>>> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>>> > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34
>>> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094
>>> >
>>> > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's
>>> > security fix as a baseline.
>>> >
>>> > BR, Oleg
>>> >
>>> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any
>>> > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release
>>> > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer
>>> > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security release
>>> as
>>> > the baseline after it is delivered.
>>> >
>>> > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in
>>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938.
>>> >
>>> > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project
>>> > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to
>>> > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the
>>> > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because it
>>> > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and
>>> > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to
>>> any
>>> > LTS version we select.
>>> >
>>> > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but
>>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS
>>> > is released.
>>> >
>>> > Mark Waite
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR
>>> >
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE <
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE> for
>>> > the mailing list selection process proposal.
>>> >
>>> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we
>>> will be
>>> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list.
>>> The
>>> > conclusion
>>> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is
>>> stable,
>>> > we could use it as a baseline.
>>> >
>>> > If we discuss only released versions
>>> > https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189
>>> >  has a pretty bad
>>> > community rating. JENKINS-58912
>>> >  /
>>> > JENKINS-58938
>>> >  looks to
>>> be
>>> > a pretty bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated
>>> > the issue so far. It is not clear when and why it happens. I
>>> am
>>> > not sure we are safe to go into LTS with it. So 2.187 is my
>>> >

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Mark Waite]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:00:13 AM UTC-4, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>
> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912 
> 
>  / JENKINS-58938  and 
> clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am fine with 190. 
> Cannot commit to investigate it unfortunately
>
> There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job 
> names (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin 
> installation parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup Experience), 
> security hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could 
> help LTS users.
>
>
Gabriel Lavoie has submitted a pull request to fix those two issues.  The 
pull request is at https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4176 and is 
related to the slow trigger monitor that was first released in 2.189.

I haven't yet been able to interactively verify the problem myself, but am 
thrilled that Gabriel was able to do so and that a pull request has been 
submitted.

That change leads me towards favoring 2.187, before that admin monitor was 
added.  I could be persuaded otherwise (especially considering the security 
fix that was announced for today), assuming we also have a fix for the 
remoting issue that was reported as 
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094

Mark Waite
 

> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>>
>> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel that 
>> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark 
>> leans that way. 
>>
>> Any other inputs? 
>>
>> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote: 
>> > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34 
>> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094 
>> > 
>> > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's 
>> > security fix as a baseline. 
>> > 
>> > BR, Oleg 
>> > 
>> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote: 
>> > 
>> > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any 
>> > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release 
>> > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer 
>> > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security release 
>> as 
>> > the baseline after it is delivered. 
>> > 
>> > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in 
>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938. 
>> > 
>> > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project 
>> > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to 
>> > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the 
>> > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because it 
>> > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and 
>> > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to any 
>> > LTS version we select. 
>> > 
>> > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but 
>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS 
>> > is released. 
>> > 
>> > Mark Waite 
>> > 
>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev > > > wrote: 
>> > 
>> > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR 
>> > 
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE <
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE> for 
>> > the mailing list selection process proposal. 
>> > 
>> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we 
>> will be 
>> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The 
>> > conclusion 
>> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable, 
>> > we could use it as a baseline. 
>> > 
>> > If we discuss only released versions 
>> > https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189 
>> >  has a pretty bad 
>> > community rating. JENKINS-58912 
>> >  / 
>> > JENKINS-58938 
>> >  looks to 
>> be 
>> > a pretty bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated 
>> > the issue so far. It is not clear when and why it happens. I am 
>> > not sure we are safe to go into LTS with it. So 2.187 is my 
>> > preference (2.188 was burned) 
>> > 
>> > BR, Oleg 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:00:47 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote: 
>> > 
>> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we 
>> will be 
>> >

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Matt Sicker]

That's in 2.189 from https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4124

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:17 AM Mark Waite  wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> Which Jenkins weekly is the first version that includes plugin install 
> batching?
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:11 AM Matt Sicker  wrote:
>>
>> I'd really love to see the plugin install batching feature integrated
>> into LTS as that comes up a _lot_ during local testing, especially
>> whenever I work on security fixes for Jenkins as we use LTS branches
>> for development there.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:09 AM Mark Waite  wrote:
>> >
>> > I hope to spend some hours investigating those two after work today 
>> > (JENKINS-58938 and JENKINS-58912).  I'm traveling so have less access to 
>> > my environment, but will spend some time trying to duplicate the issue and 
>> > identify the change which caused it.
>> >
>> > 2.187 seems reasonable, assuming the security fix is backported.  Would 
>> > the fix to those two issues be a critical factor in choosing 2.190 
>> > instead?  2.190 does not have remoting 3.34, so it avoids that regression.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:00 AM Oleg Nenashev  
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912 / 
>> >> JENKINS-58938 and clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am 
>> >> fine with 190. Cannot commit to investigate it unfortunately
>> >>
>> >> There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job 
>> >> names (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin 
>> >> installation parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup 
>> >> Experience), security hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes 
>> >> which could help LTS users.
>> >>
>> >> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel that
>> >>> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark
>> >>> leans that way.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any other inputs?
>> >>>
>> >>> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>> >>> > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34
>> >>> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's
>> >>> > security fix as a baseline.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > BR, Oleg
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any
>> >>> > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release
>> >>> > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer
>> >>> > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security release 
>> >>> > as
>> >>> > the baseline after it is delivered.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in
>> >>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project
>> >>> > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to
>> >>> > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the
>> >>> > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because it
>> >>> > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and
>> >>> > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to any
>> >>> > LTS version we select.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but
>> >>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS
>> >>> > is released.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Mark Waite
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev > >>> > > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR
>> >>> > 
>> >>> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE 
>> >>> >  for
>> >>> > the mailing list selection process proposal.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we 
>> >>> > will be
>> >>> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The
>> >>> > conclusion
>> >>> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable,
>> >>> > we could use it as a baseline.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > If we discuss only released versions
>> >>> > https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189
>> >>> >  has a pretty bad
>> >>> > community rating. JENKINS-58912
>> >>> >  /
>> >>> > JENKINS-58938
>> >>> >  looks to 
>> >>> > be
>> >>> > a pretty bad 

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Mark Waite]

Matt,

Which Jenkins weekly is the first version that includes plugin install
batching?

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:11 AM Matt Sicker  wrote:

> I'd really love to see the plugin install batching feature integrated
> into LTS as that comes up a _lot_ during local testing, especially
> whenever I work on security fixes for Jenkins as we use LTS branches
> for development there.
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:09 AM Mark Waite 
> wrote:
> >
> > I hope to spend some hours investigating those two after work today
> (JENKINS-58938 and JENKINS-58912).  I'm traveling so have less access to my
> environment, but will spend some time trying to duplicate the issue and
> identify the change which caused it.
> >
> > 2.187 seems reasonable, assuming the security fix is backported.  Would
> the fix to those two issues be a critical factor in choosing 2.190
> instead?  2.190 does not have remoting 3.34, so it avoids that regression.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:00 AM Oleg Nenashev 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912
> / JENKINS-58938 and clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am
> fine with 190. Cannot commit to investigate it unfortunately
> >>
> >> There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job
> names (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin
> installation parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup Experience),
> security hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could
> help LTS users.
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel
> that
> >>> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark
> >>> leans that way.
> >>>
> >>> Any other inputs?
> >>>
> >>> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> >>> > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34
> >>> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094
> >>> >
> >>> > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's
> >>> > security fix as a baseline.
> >>> >
> >>> > BR, Oleg
> >>> >
> >>> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any
> >>> > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release
> >>> > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer
> >>> > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security
> release as
> >>> > the baseline after it is delivered.
> >>> >
> >>> > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in
> >>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938.
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project
> >>> > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable
> to
> >>> > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the
> >>> > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because
> it
> >>> > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and
> >>> > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to
> any
> >>> > LTS version we select.
> >>> >
> >>> > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but
> >>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the
> LTS
> >>> > is released.
> >>> >
> >>> > Mark Waite
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev <
> o.v.n...@gmail.com
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR
> >>> >
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE <
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE> for
> >>> > the mailing list selection process proposal.
> >>> >
> >>> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we
> will be
> >>> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list.
> The
> >>> > conclusion
> >>> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is
> stable,
> >>> > we could use it as a baseline.
> >>> >
> >>> > If we discuss only released versions
> >>> > https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189
> >>> >  has a pretty bad
> >>> > community rating. JENKINS-58912
> >>> >  /
> >>> > JENKINS-58938
> >>> >  looks
> to be
> >>> > a pretty bad regression somewhere, but nobody has
> investigated
> >>> > the issue so far. It is not clear when and why it happens. I
> am
> >>> > not sure we are safe to go into LTS with it. So 2.187 is my
> >>> > preference (2.188 was burned)
> >>> >
> >>> > BR, 

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Matt Sicker]

I'd really love to see the plugin install batching feature integrated
into LTS as that comes up a _lot_ during local testing, especially
whenever I work on security fixes for Jenkins as we use LTS branches
for development there.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:09 AM Mark Waite  wrote:
>
> I hope to spend some hours investigating those two after work today 
> (JENKINS-58938 and JENKINS-58912).  I'm traveling so have less access to my 
> environment, but will spend some time trying to duplicate the issue and 
> identify the change which caused it.
>
> 2.187 seems reasonable, assuming the security fix is backported.  Would the 
> fix to those two issues be a critical factor in choosing 2.190 instead?  
> 2.190 does not have remoting 3.34, so it avoids that regression.
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:00 AM Oleg Nenashev  wrote:
>>
>> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912 / 
>> JENKINS-58938 and clarifies impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am 
>> fine with 190. Cannot commit to investigate it unfortunately
>>
>> There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job names 
>> (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin installation 
>> parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup Experience), security 
>> hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could help LTS 
>> users.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>>>
>>> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel that
>>> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark
>>> leans that way.
>>>
>>> Any other inputs?
>>>
>>> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>>> > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34
>>> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094
>>> >
>>> > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's
>>> > security fix as a baseline.
>>> >
>>> > BR, Oleg
>>> >
>>> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any
>>> > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release
>>> > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer
>>> > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security release as
>>> > the baseline after it is delivered.
>>> >
>>> > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in
>>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938.
>>> >
>>> > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project
>>> > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to
>>> > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the
>>> > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because it
>>> > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and
>>> > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to any
>>> > LTS version we select.
>>> >
>>> > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but
>>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS
>>> > is released.
>>> >
>>> > Mark Waite
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR
>>> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE 
>>> >  for
>>> > the mailing list selection process proposal.
>>> >
>>> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will 
>>> > be
>>> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The
>>> > conclusion
>>> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable,
>>> > we could use it as a baseline.
>>> >
>>> > If we discuss only released versions
>>> > https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189
>>> >  has a pretty bad
>>> > community rating. JENKINS-58912
>>> >  /
>>> > JENKINS-58938
>>> >  looks to be
>>> > a pretty bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated
>>> > the issue so far. It is not clear when and why it happens. I am
>>> > not sure we are safe to go into LTS with it. So 2.187 is my
>>> > preference (2.188 was burned)
>>> >
>>> > BR, Oleg
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:00:47 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>>> >
>>> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will 
>>> > be
>>> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The
>>> > conclusion
>>> > will be wrapped up no 

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Mark Waite]

I hope to spend some hours investigating those two after work today (
JENKINS-58938  and
JENKINS-58912 ).  I'm
traveling so have less access to my environment, but will spend some time
trying to duplicate the issue and identify the change which caused it.

2.187 seems reasonable, assuming the security fix is backported.  Would the
fix to those two issues be a critical factor in choosing 2.190 instead?
2.190 does not have remoting 3.34, so it avoids that regression.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 6:00 AM Oleg Nenashev 
wrote:

> For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912
>  / JENKINS-58938
>  and clarifies
> impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am fine with 190. Cannot commit
> to investigate it unfortunately
>
> There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job
> names (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin
> installation parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup Experience),
> security hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could
> help LTS users.
>
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>>
>> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel that
>> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark
>> leans that way.
>>
>> Any other inputs?
>>
>> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>> > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34
>> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094
>> >
>> > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's
>> > security fix as a baseline.
>> >
>> > BR, Oleg
>> >
>> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
>> >
>> > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any
>> > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release
>> > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer
>> > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security release
>> as
>> > the baseline after it is delivered.
>> >
>> > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in
>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938.
>> >
>> > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project
>> > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to
>> > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the
>> > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because it
>> > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and
>> > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to any
>> > LTS version we select.
>> >
>> > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but
>> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS
>> > is released.
>> >
>> > Mark Waite
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR
>> >
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE <
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE> for
>> > the mailing list selection process proposal.
>> >
>> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we
>> will be
>> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The
>> > conclusion
>> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT
>> >
>> >
>> > We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable,
>> > we could use it as a baseline.
>> >
>> > If we discuss only released versions
>> > https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189
>> >  has a pretty bad
>> > community rating. JENKINS-58912
>> >  /
>> > JENKINS-58938
>> >  looks to
>> be
>> > a pretty bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated
>> > the issue so far. It is not clear when and why it happens. I am
>> > not sure we are safe to go into LTS with it. So 2.187 is my
>> > preference (2.188 was burned)
>> >
>> > BR, Oleg
>> >
>> >
>> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:00:47 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>> >
>> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we
>> will be
>> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The
>> > conclusion
>> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UTC
>> time.
>> > Feel free
>> > to share your thoughts here.
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> > I believe we affectively only have 

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Oleg Nenashev]

For me 2.187 is a default pick. If somebody investigates  JENKINS-58912 
 / JENKINS-58938 
 and clarifies 
impact/possibility of a fix for .1, then I am fine with 190. Cannot commit 
to investigate it unfortunately

There are some reasons to want 2.190. Apart from emoji support for job 
names (yey!) there are some more meaningful changes like plugin 
installation parallelization for Setup Wizard (Jenkins Startup Experience), 
security hardening, install-plugin fixes, and other changes which could 
help LTS users.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:50:34 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>
> So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel that 
> strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark 
> leans that way. 
>
> Any other inputs? 
>
> On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote: 
> > There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34 
> > https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094 
> > 
> > I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's 
> > security fix as a baseline. 
> > 
> > BR, Oleg 
> > 
> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote: 
> > 
> > I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any 
> > immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release 
> > scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer 
> > choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security release as 
> > the baseline after it is delivered. 
> > 
> > I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in 
> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938. 
> > 
> > I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project 
> > beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to 
> > duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the 
> > symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because it 
> > is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and 
> > later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to any 
> > LTS version we select. 
> > 
> > I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but 
> > JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS 
> > is released. 
> > 
> > Mark Waite 
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev  > > wrote: 
> > 
> > I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR 
> > 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE <
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE> for 
> > the mailing list selection process proposal. 
> > 
> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will 
> be 
> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The 
> > conclusion 
> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT 
> > 
> > 
> > We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable, 
> > we could use it as a baseline. 
> > 
> > If we discuss only released versions 
> > https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189 
> >  has a pretty bad 
> > community rating. JENKINS-58912 
> >  / 
> > JENKINS-58938 
> >  looks to 
> be 
> > a pretty bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated 
> > the issue so far. It is not clear when and why it happens. I am 
> > not sure we are safe to go into LTS with it. So 2.187 is my 
> > preference (2.188 was burned) 
> > 
> > BR, Oleg 
> > 
> > 
> > On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:00:47 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote: 
> > 
> > For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will 
> be 
> > selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The 
> > conclusion 
> > will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UTC time. 
> > Feel free 
> > to share your thoughts here. 
> > 
> > --- 
> > 
> > I believe we affectively only have 2 candidates[1], 2.189 
> > and 2.190. 
> > Since 2.190 has relatively few changes in it, all minor, got 
> > 2 weeks of 
> > soaking with nothing but positive community feedback, I vote 
> > to choose 
> > that despite being the latest weekly published. 
> > 
> > [1] https://jenkins.io/changelog/ 
> > 
> > -- 
> > oliver 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> > Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving 

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Oliver Gondža]

So I guess that eliminates 2.191 as a choice for LTS. I do not feel that 
strong choosing between 2.190 and 2.187, and it appears Oleg and Mark 
leans that way.


Any other inputs?

On 27/08/2019 11.15, Oleg Nenashev wrote:

There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094

I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's 
security fix as a baseline.


BR, Oleg

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:

I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any
immediate reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release
scheduled for Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer
choosing 2.190 as a baseline, then update to the security release as
the baseline after it is delivered.

I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in
JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938.

I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project
beginning in 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to
duplicate it.  The KDE project found a workaround (install the
symlinks plugin) and can't really explore other options because it
is their production system.  JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and
later, so it seems relevant to investigate further as a risk to any
LTS version we select.

I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but
JENKINS-58912 and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS
is released.

Mark Waite

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev > wrote:

I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE 
 for
the mailing list selection process proposal.

For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be
selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The
conclusion
will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT


We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable,
we could use it as a baseline.

If we discuss only released versions
https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189
 has a pretty bad
community rating. JENKINS-58912
 /
JENKINS-58938
 looks to be
a pretty bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated
the issue so far. It is not clear when and why it happens. I am
not sure we are safe to go into LTS with it. So 2.187 is my
preference (2.188 was burned)

BR, Oleg


On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:00:47 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:

For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be
selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The
conclusion
will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UTC time.
Feel free
to share your thoughts here.

---

I believe we affectively only have 2 candidates[1], 2.189
and 2.190.
Since 2.190 has relatively few changes in it, all minor, got
2 weeks of
soaking with nothing but positive community feedback, I vote
to choose
that despite being the latest weekly published.

[1] https://jenkins.io/changelog/

-- 
oliver


-- 
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 jenkin...@googlegroups.com .
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com

.



-- 
Thanks!

Mark Waite

--
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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/8346a1c4-ca52-4f6f-b89a-f00bb0eb48e2%40googlegroups.com 
.



--
oliver

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins 
Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop 

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Oleg Nenashev]

There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-59094 

I think it a serious obstacle for this version or for the tomorrow's 
security fix as a baseline.

BR, Oleg

On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 1:37:18 PM UTC+2, Mark Waite wrote:
>
> I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any immediate 
> reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release scheduled for 
> Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer choosing 2.190 as a 
> baseline, then update to the security release as the baseline after it is 
> delivered.
>
> I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in JENKINS-58912 and 
> JENKINS-58938.  
>
> I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project beginning in 
> 2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to duplicate it.  The 
> KDE project found a workaround (install the symlinks plugin) and can't 
> really explore other options because it is their production system.  
> JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and later, so it seems relevant to 
> investigate further as a risk to any LTS version we select.
>
> I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but JENKINS-58912 
> and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS is released.
>
> Mark Waite
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev  > wrote:
>
>> I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR 
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE for 
>> the mailing list selection process proposal.
>>
>> For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be 
>>> selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The conclusion 
>>> will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT
>>>
>>
>> We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable, we could 
>> use it as a baseline. 
>>
>> If we discuss only released versions https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189 
>> has 
>> a pretty bad community rating. JENKINS-58912 
>>  / JENKINS-58938 
>>  looks to be a 
>> pretty bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated the issue so 
>> far. It is not clear when and why it happens. I am not sure we are safe to 
>> go into LTS with it. So 2.187 is my preference (2.188 was burned) 
>>
>> BR, Oleg
>>
>>
>> On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:00:47 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>>>
>>> For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be 
>>> selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The conclusion 
>>> will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UTC time. Feel free 
>>> to share your thoughts here. 
>>>
>>> --- 
>>>
>>> I believe we affectively only have 2 candidates[1], 2.189 and 2.190. 
>>> Since 2.190 has relatively few changes in it, all minor, got 2 weeks of 
>>> soaking with nothing but positive community feedback, I vote to choose 
>>> that despite being the latest weekly published. 
>>>
>>> [1] https://jenkins.io/changelog/ 
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> oliver 
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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 jenkin...@googlegroups.com .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Thanks!
> Mark Waite
>

-- 
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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/8346a1c4-ca52-4f6f-b89a-f00bb0eb48e2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Mark Waite]

I've started testing 2.190 late Friday.  I did not find any immediate
reasons to reject it as the LTS.  The security release scheduled for
Wednesday seems to me like a good reason to prefer choosing 2.190 as a
baseline, then update to the security release as the baseline after it is
delivered.

I haven't investigated the startup failures reported in JENKINS-58912 and
JENKINS-58938.

I'm also concerned about JENKINS-58692 from the KDE project beginning in
2.186.  Jesse Glick investigated it and was unable to duplicate it.  The
KDE project found a workaround (install the symlinks plugin) and can't
really explore other options because it is their production system.
JENKINS-58692 will affect 2.186 and later, so it seems relevant to
investigate further as a risk to any LTS version we select.

I prefer the upcoming security release as the baseline, but JENKINS-58912
and JENKINS-58938  need investigation before the LTS is released.

Mark Waite

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 6:28 AM Oleg Nenashev 
wrote:

> I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE for the
> mailing list selection process proposal.
>
> For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be
>> selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The conclusion
>> will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT
>>
>
> We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable, we could
> use it as a baseline.
>
> If we discuss only released versions https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189 has
> a pretty bad community rating. JENKINS-58912
>  / JENKINS-58938
>  looks to be a pretty
> bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated the issue so far. It
> is not clear when and why it happens. I am not sure we are safe to go into
> LTS with it. So 2.187 is my preference (2.188 was burned)
>
> BR, Oleg
>
>
> On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:00:47 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>>
>> For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be
>> selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The conclusion
>> will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UTC time. Feel free
>> to share your thoughts here.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I believe we affectively only have 2 candidates[1], 2.189 and 2.190.
>> Since 2.190 has relatively few changes in it, all minor, got 2 weeks of
>> soaking with nothing but positive community feedback, I vote to choose
>> that despite being the latest weekly published.
>>
>> [1] https://jenkins.io/changelog/
>>
>> --
>> oliver
>>
> --
> 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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>


-- 
Thanks!
Mark Waite

-- 
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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAO49JtGF6tysTgmQ4whw%3DEgBaj4POMoCkwipVGpLXrt3axdkyA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Oleg Nenashev]

I would vote for 2.187 as a baseline. FTR 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jenkinsci-dev/oQ8PD1hgYBE for the 
mailing list selection process proposal.

For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be 
> selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The conclusion 
> will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UT
>

We have a security release on Wednesday. Assuming it is stable, we could 
use it as a baseline. 

If we discuss only released versions https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189 has 
a pretty bad community rating. JENKINS-58912 
 / JENKINS-58938 
 looks to be a pretty 
bad regression somewhere, but nobody has investigated the issue so far. It 
is not clear when and why it happens. I am not sure we are safe to go into 
LTS with it. So 2.187 is my preference (2.188 was burned) 

BR, Oleg


On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 11:00:47 AM UTC+2, ogondza wrote:
>
> For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be 
> selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The conclusion 
> will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UTC time. Feel free 
> to share your thoughts here. 
>
> --- 
>
> I believe we affectively only have 2 candidates[1], 2.189 and 2.190. 
> Since 2.190 has relatively few changes in it, all minor, got 2 weeks of 
> soaking with nothing but positive community feedback, I vote to choose 
> that despite being the latest weekly published. 
>
> [1] https://jenkins.io/changelog/ 
>
> -- 
> oliver 
>

-- 
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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com.

Next LTS line selection open. Due 2019-08-27

[Oliver Gondža]

For the anticipated absence of a government meeting, we will be 
selecting next LTS candidate here, on the mailing list. The conclusion 
will be wrapped up no longer than Tuesday 27th COB UTC time. Feel free 
to share your thoughts here.


---

I believe we affectively only have 2 candidates[1], 2.189 and 2.190. 
Since 2.190 has relatively few changes in it, all minor, got 2 weeks of 
soaking with nothing but positive community feedback, I vote to choose 
that despite being the latest weekly published.


[1] https://jenkins.io/changelog/

--
oliver

--
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 jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2694c06c-0108-6276-8adf-f8797a392655%40gmail.com.