LTS baseline selection

[Oliver Gondža]

The last release of 2.204 LTS line is scheduled for this Wednesday, and
so is the start of new LTS cycle. Let's voice the baseline candidates
and our concerns in advance to speed up the discussion in governance
meeting.

--
oliver

[mike cirioli]

I am relatively new to the process of selecting a baseline candidate, but i would like to voice support for the v2.222 weekly.  I understand that the timing is quite close to the LTS selection date, but so far in my testing I have not encountered any issues.  Although a number of the new major features are currently considered "experimental", they are disabled by default (opt-in) and their availability in an LTS release could really improve the amount of feedback between now and the next LTS.

I will continue to test and validate the 2.222 weekly release this week, and will share any issues that I find.

my $.02

-mike

[Jesse Glick]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:37 PM Oliver Gondža <ogo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the baseline candidates

Reference: https://jenkins.io/changelog/

> in advance to speed up the discussion in governance meeting.

Are baselines still selected during governance meetings? I thought
that had switched to the list.

[Baptiste Mathus]

I think the discussion happens here a lot, but the final /stamp/ after the trend/discussion/decision here is still done during gov meeting (still makes sense IMO).

--
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-de...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr1C4wg1EiT18OuyG3Mi3WeZspgwtUuqpME2L_7P-O%2B_CQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Oleg Nenashev]

Regarding 2.222... I believe there is a lot for interest to get 2.222 in the LTS so that plugins could start adapting to the new Systemread and Manage permissions earlier. There is a lot of experimental features and new APIs included there, and I believe it would be valuable for the Jenkins community if this release was selected as an LTS baseline. At the same time, I admit that the release has not been battle tested for long.

Some notes:

• 2.222 was released this Sunday, and the release metrics are yet to be seen. 
• The community rating is 19 positives and 2 "I had to rollback"
• There is no issues reported to this release in Jira or in social media
• There is one negative feedback in the UX SIG Gitter about the header size in the default UI. The header went from 68px to 96px (thanks Wadeck) and caused some feedback about mispositioned controls and impact on muscle memory by Rocky Breslow. I consider it as an important feedback, but AFAICT we can optimize the header size and backport the change if needed
• 2.221 has a flawless community rating (31 positive), there is no regressions reported
• JENKINS-61121 will need to be backported if we chose this release
  
• Issues in both releases
• There is a JENKINS-61197 regression which impacts custom workspaces in the root directory (or Windows drive label). I am working on a fix, it should be backportable

My personal preference would be to go with 2.222 unless there are major issues discovered there by the RC date. In order to make it happen, we should at least process the UX report with the header. I deployed 2.222 on my local setup, and it looks good with the default setting and with Manage and SystemRead permissions enabled. Experimental Web UI works as well, but I reverted to the classic one. 

BR, Oleg

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 11:39:35 AM UTC+1, Baptiste Mathus wrote:

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:33 AM Jesse Glick <jgl...@cloudbees.com> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:37 PM Oliver Gondža <ogo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the baseline candidates

Reference: https://jenkins.io/changelog/

> in advance to speed up the discussion in governance meeting.

Are baselines still selected during governance meetings? I thought
that had switched to the list.

I think the discussion happens here a lot, but the final /stamp/ after the trend/discussion/decision here is still done during gov meeting (still makes sense IMO).

--
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.

[Ullrich Hafner]

• 
  2.222 was released this Sunday, and the release metrics are yet to be seen. 
• The community rating is 19 positives and 2 "I had to rollback"
• There is no issues reported to this release in Jira or in social media
• There is one negative feedback in the UX SIG Gitter about the header size in the default UI. The header went from 68px to 96px (thanks Wadeck) and caused some feedback about mispositioned controls and impact on muscle memory by Rocky Breslow. I consider it as an important feedback, but AFAICT we can optimize the header size and backport the change if needed

I think we should give theme authors (and maybe plugin developers) more time to update their plugins to the new styling. Otherwise the new UI improvements might look like a step backward rather than a step forward. Then we also have the chance to provide some more UI enhancements in other areas so that the overall appearance looks consistent.  

[Oleg Nenashev]

Hi Ulli,

The new frontend styling is behind the feature flag. By default there is only a change in the Jenkins header which should not impact the plugin developers except few ones who extend breadcrumbs or customize login/search controls. I believe that only few plugin maintainers would be affected there. Theme developers are a different story, and indeed there is likely to be an impact on them. AFAIK Felix did some experiments with Material Design Themes tho, and they worked pretty well out-of-the-box

BR, Oleg

[Ullrich Hafner]

While I like the new look, a mix of the new UI and the existing material theme looks kind of weird now, even with disabled UI flag. There are a lot of changes that are not part of the flag:

Jenkins 2.222 (new UI disabled):

Jenkins LTS:

--
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-de...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2b66fcbd-3b15-4fea-8d39-9beeb11f5a8f%40googlegroups.com.

[Tim Jacomb]

That looks like a fairly minor css tweak to fix that, is it just the search input? I wouldn’t exclude it from LTS for that issue

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/64C2E3C8-CA2D-4C36-BFAF-9889BA1EA634%40gmail.com.

[Oleg Nenashev]

There is also  https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-60409 which needs to be investigated for the new LTS candidate. Looks like the default Jetty behavior changed, and it may impact some users when they upgrade to the new baseline

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jenkinsci-dev/VRxRCP_IKhQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAH-3BieW76tV_2%3DqvwAJy7BpnaFzCZ6Mucoi7KGCY-JLefqABQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniel Beck]

> On 25. Feb 2020, at 16:44, Oleg Nenashev <o.v.ne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is also https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-60409 which needs to be investigated for the new LTS candidate. Looks like the default Jetty behavior changed, and it may impact some users when they upgrade to the new baseline

Irrelevant for this thread, as that issue affects every weekly release newer than the current LTS baseline. Might need upgrade docs or an expedited fix + back port but that applies to every potential LTS baseline choice.

[Tim Jacomb]

We've been running 2.222 in production since first thing Monday,

No issues so far,

We enabled the global background build discarder, it ran for about 9 hours on the first run and cleared up ~200GB of space, 

We're very happy with the disk cleanup feature in 2.221 (thanks DB)

Thanks

Tim

--
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-de...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/7E8CB82D-2A1F-4A02-B42A-2AE0920CD822%40beckweb.net.

[Oliver Gondža]

The have almost unanimous support for 2.222. Since users can opt-out
from the potentially breaking changes, I do not see a reason why not to
use it.

On 25/02/2020 13.04, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> Regarding 2.222... I believe there is a lot for interest to get 2.222 in
> the LTS so that plugins could start adapting to the new Systemread and
> Manage permissions earlier. There is a lot of experimental features and
> new APIs included there, and I believe it would be valuable for the
> Jenkins community if this release was selected as an LTS baseline. At
> the same time, I admit that the release has not been battle tested for long.
>
> Some notes:
>

> * 2.222 was released this Sunday, and the release metrics are yet to
> be seen.
> o The community rating is 19 positives and 2 "I had to rollback"
> o There is no issues reported to this release in Jira or in social
> media
> o There is one negative feedback in the UX SIG Gitter
> <https://gitter.im/jenkinsci/ux-sig> about the header size in

> the default UI. The header went from 68px to 96px (thanks
> Wadeck) and caused some feedback about mispositioned controls
> and impact on muscle memory by Rocky Breslow. I consider it as
> an important feedback, but AFAICT we can optimize the header
> size and backport the change if needed

> * 2.221 has a flawless community rating (31 positive), there is no
> regressions reported
> o JENKINS-61121
> <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-61121> will need

> to be backported if we chose this release

> * Issues in both releases
> o There is a JENKINS-61197
> <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-61197> regression

> which impacts custom workspaces in the root directory (or
> Windows drive label). I am working on a fix, it should be
> backportable
>
> My personal preference would be to go with 2.222 unless there are major
> issues discovered there by the RC date. In order to make it happen, we
> should at least process the UX report with the header. I deployed 2.222
> on my local setup, and it looks good with the default setting and with
> Manage and SystemRead permissions enabled. Experimental Web UI works as
> well, but I reverted to the classic one.
>
> BR, Oleg
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 11:39:35 AM UTC+1, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:33 AM Jesse Glick <jgl...@cloudbees.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:37 PM Oliver Gondža <ogo...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> > the baseline candidates
>
> Reference: https://jenkins.io/changelog/
>
> > in advance to speed up the discussion in governance meeting.
>
> Are baselines still selected during governance meetings? I thought
> that had switched to the list.
>
>

> I /think/ the discussion happens here a lot, but the final /stamp/

> after the trend/discussion/decision here is still done during gov
> meeting (still makes sense IMO).
>
>
>
> --
> 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 <javascript:>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr1C4wg1EiT18OuyG3Mi3WeZspgwtUuqpME2L_7P-O%2B_CQ%40mail.gmail.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr1C4wg1EiT18OuyG3Mi3WeZspgwtUuqpME2L_7P-O%2B_CQ%40mail.gmail.com>.

>
> --
> 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-de...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:jenkinsci-de...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/a98cbee5-e2b9-4164-be01-7f7c5c2ddbfe%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/a98cbee5-e2b9-4164-be01-7f7c5c2ddbfe%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.


--
oliver

[Baptiste Mathus]

Curious @Tim: 

did you also:

• enable the new header UI?
• enable JEP-223?

Thanks!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAH-3BieKEt0Jv3RZb19yWmBZNTbyr%2Bmf%2BAmjP1SxeO3XdEvGfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Jacomb]

Yes we have the new header UI enabled, the feedback I got from users was they liked it, no negative feedback received.

JEP-223: No we have no use for it as our instance is fully managed in code

Thanks

Tim

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPyTVp0kF6zx%2BpmR9LCN7XS8iTfi6aS86TGDR3j%3DZMXfRSHzTg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gavin Mogan]

For the lazy - https://jenkins.io/jep/219

> JEP-223: "Manage" permission for managing non-security aspects of a Jenkins instance

I also havn't tried 223, but like the slight changes to the new UI, though it is slightly jarring on very first glance.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAH-3Bic5ROtC5em5oNQTJYrT4w6BhkZbf2RueUHE-7CyE%2BPLHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tobias Gruetzmacher]

Hi,

search also looks a little funky in my Neo2 theme: https://imgur.com/9UC4jQZ

Looks like a minor fix IMHO.

[Oleg Nenashev]

IIUC 2.222 is a winner. If yes/no, could we please officially announce it so that parties can start preparing to the RC testing?

search also looks a little funky in my Neo2 theme: https://imgur.com/9UC4jQZ
Looks like a minor fix IMHO.

Yes, themes might be affected as it was discussed in the PRs. The impact should be fairly minor tho.

I also added an entry in the upgrade guideline for that: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4463

BR, Oleg