Backporting for 1.625.3 has started

[oliver gondža]

Hi,

Backporting for next LTS release is on. The RC will be published
2015-11-25.

Candidates: https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/issues/?filter=12146
Fixed:
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%201.625.3-fixed
Rejected:
https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%201.625.3-rejected
--
oliver

[Stephen Connolly]

What was your reason for rejecting JENKINS-31649? I suspect not fixing it could be causing issues for plugins that track upstream blockers

--
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/op.x8lnsfp1sbfict%40dhcp-10-40-2-236.brq.redhat.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Stephen Connolly]

FYI we will also likely want the fix for JENKINS-31718 if we can get it confirmed today.

[Daniel Beck]

On 24.11.2015, at 11:31, Stephen Connolly <stephen.al...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What was your reason for rejecting JENKINS-31649?

If I had to guess I'd say no soaking. This hasn't even been released in main line yet (no 1.639 this week).

[Stephen Connolly]

Well I would argue that it should be more seriously considered... I view 31718 and 31649 as fixing issues that are subtly more serious than people might initially suspect. 

The fix for 31649 I feel is sufficiently low risk that we can and I believe should go ahead with it. 

The fix for 31718 - assuming that we get confirmation from Oleg - is another one that should probably go in... either that or a release of remoting with PR#41 reverted but I think PR#65 is less risk (assuming that it works that is)

--
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/FC1EE375-DD59-4219-A55E-03D17FA07C04%40beckweb.net.

[ogondza]

As Daniel said, none of the issues was released in any weekly. I agree JENKINS-31649 is of low risk so I am opened to backport it. Although, the priority is only major, not many votes, not clear who is affected, no unittests.

I do not consider JENKINS-31718 to be a serious candidate for .3 as will likely not make it to the core when LTS is released, not even talking about any soakng...

--
oliver

[Jesse Glick]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 7:04 AM, ogondza <ogo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not consider JENKINS-31718 to be a serious candidate for .3 as will
> likely not make it to the core when LTS is released

We can push it to `master` today. I would urge you to reconsider. This
is a potentially serious regression introduced in .2. Regressions
should be exempt from the soak period requirement IMO.

I also advocate for JENKINS-31649 to be included and will work on a
matching fix with test to `workflow-plugin`.

[ogondza]

Backported JENKINS-31649. Thanks Jesse.