Backporting for LTS 2.121.1 started

[Oliver Gondža]

Backporting has started and the RC is scheduled for 2018-05-23.

Candidates: https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/issues/?filter=12146
Fixed:
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%202.121.1-fixed
Rejected:
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%202.121.1-rejected
--
oliver

[ogondza]

The backporting window is closing this Wednesday. There ware no candidates nominated (likely due to recent baseline choice) BUT there is the outstanding problem of JENKINS-51253[0].

There does not seem to be a consensus on whether/how to fix it[1] so I am wondering which version of remoting we prefer to use for 2.121 LTS. I lean towards using pre-JENKINS-45287[2] remoting - before the regression was introduced. But there are alternatives of shipping current master or expediting the fix.

Thoughts?

[0] https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-51253
[1] https://github.com/jenkinsci/packaging/pull/107
[2] https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-45287

[Daniel Beck]

I assume s/remoting/packaging/g here, otherwise I'm really confused.

The current packaging (or at least the bits that don't declare a Java dependency) has been used in weekly releases for a long time successfully, and probably for the 2.89.x line and older as well. We document the intended behavior on the repo index page (see PR discussion). It's just an oversight that resulted in the outdated packaging being used for 2.107.1 and 2.107.2.

IMO we could mention this in the upgrade guide, complete with explanation similar to the package repo index pages, and done. No reason to diverge LTS packaging from weekly packaging deliberately.

[Oliver Gondža]

On 2018-05-21 14:26, Daniel Beck wrote:

> The current packaging (or at least the bits that don't declare a Java dependency) has been used in weekly releases for a long time successfully, and probably for the 2.89.x line and older as well. We document the intended behavior on the repo index page (see PR discussion). It's just an oversight that resulted in the outdated packaging being used for 2.107.1 and 2.107.2.

Hmm, I was under impression 1.107.3 was the first LTS with given
packaging change but you are right, it was in 2.73 and 2.89 as well.

> IMO we could mention this in the upgrade guide, complete with explanation similar to the package repo index pages, and done. No reason to diverge LTS packaging from weekly packaging deliberately.

If we do not intend to "fix" that (and I am not saying we should), then yes.

--
oliver

[ivila...@cloudbees.com]

Hi Oliver,

Any news on publishing the 2.121.1 in http://mirrors.jenkins.io/war-stable/?

Thanks in advance

[Joseph P]

I think this issue deserves backporting before releasing LTS 2.121.1, https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-51603

Rather minor fix but important for CasC

[Jesse Glick]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Joseph P <jose...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rather minor fix but important for CasC

JCasC is still experimental so I do not suppose core changes to better
support it should be considered eligible for LTS backport.