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

75 views
Skip to first unread message

Oliver Gondža

unread,
Aug 26, 2019, 5:00:47 AM8/26/19
to jenkin...@googlegroups.com
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

Oleg Nenashev

unread,
Aug 26, 2019, 6:28:36 AM8/26/19
to Jenkins Developers
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

Mark Waite

unread,
Aug 26, 2019, 7:37:18 AM8/26/19
to jenkinsci-dev
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

--
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/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com.


--
Thanks!
Mark Waite

Oleg Nenashev

unread,
Aug 27, 2019, 5:15:10 AM8/27/19
to Jenkins Developers
There is a confirmed regression in Jenkins 2.191 / Remoting 3.34

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 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.


--
Thanks!
Mark Waite

Oliver Gondža

unread,
Aug 27, 2019, 5:50:34 AM8/27/19
to jenkin...@googlegroups.com
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?
> 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
> <https://jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.189> has a pretty bad
> community rating. JENKINS-58912
> <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-58912> /
> JENKINS-58938
> <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-58938> looks to be
> 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/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
>
>
> --
> 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-de...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:jenkinsci-de...@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
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/8346a1c4-ca52-4f6f-b89a-f00bb0eb48e2%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.


--
oliver

Oleg Nenashev

unread,
Aug 27, 2019, 6:00:13 AM8/27/19
to Jenkins Developers
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.

Mark Waite

unread,
Aug 27, 2019, 7:09:20 AM8/27/19
to jenkinsci-dev
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.

--
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/f36d1d5c-4d1d-42a2-bdfe-f364fea457c2%40googlegroups.com.


--
Thanks!
Mark Waite

Matt Sicker

unread,
Aug 27, 2019, 11:11:25 AM8/27/19
to jenkin...@googlegroups.com
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.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAO49JtGeGsjwX7vfYBFuVfNNEfgEUk8sVAmcNqZS5%3DmifGAiNg%40mail.gmail.com.



--
Matt Sicker
Senior Software Engineer, CloudBees

Mark Waite

unread,
Aug 27, 2019, 11:17:26 AM8/27/19
to jenkinsci-dev
Matt,

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAEot4oxEuFJm1%2BqqufyTcbduw9ZLyUW3a4qz_bk1w5%2BZ%3DFjNdQ%40mail.gmail.com.


--
Thanks!
Mark Waite

Matt Sicker

unread,
Aug 27, 2019, 11:24:20 AM8/27/19
to jenkin...@googlegroups.com
That's in 2.189 from https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/4124
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAO49JtGSU1sLaq0Nf9h5ZEVZ76HEOENj2jUyYn5iGzodxydoZw%40mail.gmail.com.

Mark Waite

unread,
Aug 28, 2019, 6:54:30 AM8/28/19
to Jenkins Developers


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

Oleg Nenashev

unread,
Aug 28, 2019, 7:39:31 AM8/28/19
to JenkinsCI Developers
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


--
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/FM8_kG1kdw8/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/dfd3af58-7ed1-4849-8cd1-0c55ff9010a3%40googlegroups.com.

Mark Waite

unread,
Aug 28, 2019, 7:59:11 AM8/28/19
to Jenkins Developers
+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


--
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/FM8_kG1kdw8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Oleg Nenashev

unread,
Aug 29, 2019, 5:46:30 AM8/29/19
to Jenkins Developers
Hi Oliver,

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

Thanks in advance,
Oleg
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to jenkin...@googlegroups.com.

Oliver Gondža

unread,
Sep 2, 2019, 4:20:24 AM9/2/19
to jenkin...@googlegroups.com
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
> <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
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.jenkins-ci.org%2Fbrowse%2FJENKINS-58912&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG-zP4KRD2k95IS6rp2N1UtzSnNPw> /
> JENKINS-58938
> <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-58938> and
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/2577f42d-5a15-4995-b5f8-a97de6a60fe7%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     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 jenkin...@googlegroups.com
> > <mailto:jenkinsci-de...@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
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/8346a1c4-ca52-4f6f-b89a-f00bb0eb48e2%40googlegroups.com>
>
> >
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/8346a1c4-ca52-4f6f-b89a-f00bb0eb48e2%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/8346a1c4-ca52-4f6f-b89a-f00bb0eb48e2%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>
>
>
> --
> oliver
>
> --
> 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/FM8_kG1kdw8/unsubscribe
> <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jenkinsci-dev/FM8_kG1kdw8/unsubscribe>.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an
> email to jenkin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/dfd3af58-7ed1-4849-8cd1-0c55ff9010a3%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/dfd3af58-7ed1-4849-8cd1-0c55ff9010a3%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
> --
> 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/3e3f2c23-1089-4230-b54d-9dfa3ed2b146%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/3e3f2c23-1089-4230-b54d-9dfa3ed2b146%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.


--
oliver

Beatriz Munoz

unread,
Sep 2, 2019, 5:40:45 AM9/2/19
to jenkin...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,

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

Thanks in advance

Bea

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/3e3f2c23-1089-4230-b54d-9dfa3ed2b146%40googlegroups.com.

ogondza

unread,
Sep 2, 2019, 5:43:11 AM9/2/19
to Jenkins Developers
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages