LTS baseline selection for the successor of 2.249

[Oliver Gondža]

Let's voice the baseline candidate suggestions and concerns.

We seem to be in the situation where all recent weeklies are fixing
recent regressions making none of them an appealing candidate to me. I
do not feel like choosing the latest weekly in a hope all will be well
from now on. But at the same time 2.258 (2020-09-22), the latest release
its changelog is filling me with confidence, feels too old by now.

Thoughts?

https://jenkins.io/changelog/
--
oliver

[Oleg Nenashev]

I hope the today's 2.263 stabilizes the weekly release line: https://www.jenkins.io/changelog/#v2.263. We have integrated the issue 63958 regression fix, and the rest of the changes were very conservative. Unless there is something really bad with this release, I would suggest selecting it. With 4 weeks until the release candidate, we should be able to mitigate other regressions if somethings pops up.

I will try to facilitate the community feedback through social media.

Best regards,

Oleg

[Tim Jacomb]

2.263 is looking like the best option, so far no reports of issues in it.

2.263 was reverting / fixing the last of the major regressions in the previous versions.

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/19940acc-d16b-4fca-a985-96c7ce9a6fd1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Waite]

I've successfully switched my test environment to Jenkins 2.263. I'll continue running in that environment.  It is looking good so far.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAH-3BieDRMn4bSCVsZ7ugkXpNP6oe7SH8MpmW-Fy%3D806MvNTWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Oleg Nenashev]

My instances have been running on 2.263 since Tuesday. I have also switched my test Jenkinsfile Runner testing setup to 2.263, and it looks good.

The biggest issue I see in production is the Trilead API plugin regression in the latest versions. Not relevant to the core LTS baseline though we may want to update the bundled version before the release.

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/AWOPeU4k0DI/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/CAO49JtFt%3DoeQQK-Bxm7dBVtg35Tk00ry%3DDviNSQF0TN-Wok8hQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Jacomb]

We’ve been running it in production since yesterday 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPfivLDi4aky3dZ6szMw%2BJ_jLy84E7f68Gkg-NF-v_4qAN1LOA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jesse Glick]

Did the governance meeting bless 2.263, or is the debate still open?

[Marky Jackson]

To my knowledge it was blessed

> On Oct 22, 2020, at 11:43 AM, Jesse Glick <jgl...@cloudbees.com> wrote:
>
> Did the governance meeting bless 2.263, or is the debate still open?

>
> --
> 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/CANfRfr3bk7SObPFA_Lxo_-3gamV2rC6Zu%2BD6QhRXiWPfaRYo8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Waite]

Governance meeting discussion did not bless 2.263.  The discussion is ongoing.

New weekly release 2.263 was noted in the governance meeting and noted that the LTS baseline selection has not concluded.  Feedback encouraged on the discussion thread.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 12:44 PM Jesse Glick <jgl...@cloudbees.com> wrote:

Did the governance meeting bless 2.263, or is the debate still open?

--
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/CANfRfr3bk7SObPFA_Lxo_-3gamV2rC6Zu%2BD6QhRXiWPfaRYo8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Oleg Nenashev]

+1 to what Mark says. We discussed options on the table at the meeting, but that's it. Oliver was not present at the meeting, and there was not much feedback in the mailing list by the time of the meeting.

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/AWOPeU4k0DI/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/CAO49JtFaQr%3DYk9eDp-qCh_c6_qpKMnJ413n67afDQ6xjDqBCRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jesse Glick]

For what it is worth, 2.263 seems reasonable.
https://www.jenkins.io/changelog/ shows no user complaints so far.

[Oleg Nenashev]

Yes, Jira is also fine for 2.263

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020, 23:48 Jesse Glick <jgl...@cloudbees.com> wrote:

For what it is worth, 2.263 seems reasonable.
https://www.jenkins.io/changelog/ shows no user complaints so far.

--
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/AWOPeU4k0DI/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/CANfRfr3zXCeJUmwQZCMniORA3Y5VZxPdf6hOYXViyY86w7PgLw%40mail.gmail.com.

[vsilv...@gmail.com]

It looks Windows release is not available - https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/issues/3892

[Mark Waite]

That's correct.  The windows installer can't be built (yet) due to an issue with password expiration and the Windows Docker container.

Windows users can install prior weekly releases and use the "Upgrade now" button inside Jenkins to install 2.263 on their Windows computer.

--

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/30b38bff-19bc-4897-8d1a-d416b6664ef5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Oliver Gondža]

For now, we have no better candidate than 2.263. I suggest to accept it,
with possibility to reevaluate in two weeks when the line is supposed to
be initiated. We will keep it if nothing pressing pops up.

On 23/10/2020 02.05, Mark Waite wrote:
> That's correct.  The windows installer can't be built (yet) due to an
> issue with password expiration and the Windows Docker container.
>
> Windows users can install prior weekly releases and use the "Upgrade
> now" button inside Jenkins to install 2.263 on their Windows computer.
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:03 PM vsilv...@gmail.com

> <mailto:vsilv...@gmail.com> <vsilv...@gmail.com

> <mailto:vsilv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> It looks Windows release is not available -
> https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/issues/3892
>
> On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 2:48:45 PM UTC-7 Jesse Glick wrote:
>
> For what it is worth, 2.263 seems reasonable.
> https://www.jenkins.io/changelog/ shows no user complaints so far.
>
> --
> 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/30b38bff-19bc-4897-8d1a-d416b6664ef5n%40googlegroups.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/30b38bff-19bc-4897-8d1a-d416b6664ef5n%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/CAO49JtGyGEfOQ_0t15-LnqRVHWa31kVZ1QZ8dftkbeea8ohKQg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAO49JtGyGEfOQ_0t15-LnqRVHWa31kVZ1QZ8dftkbeea8ohKQg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.


--
oliver

[Baptiste Mathus]

I agree. 2.263 seems like the least bad option.

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/e59ae697-1d6d-055d-6cb7-0fe75f014897%40gmail.com.

[Oleg Nenashev]

Thanks to Oliver for the decision! I will go ahead and start switching the preview components like JFR and Custom War Packager to use 2.263 by default. It should give us some additional testing. Thanks to Jesse Glick for starting the Plugin BOM baseline early: https://github.com/jenkinsci/bom/releases/tag/bom-16 .

W.r.t. Windows bits... Yes, the Windows packaging hiccup is unfortunate. Unfortunately it would apply to any package we try to ship, regardless of the version. We could consider switching Windows packaging to alternative setup (e.g. VM instead of a container), but IMHO it would be a disservice to users adopting Windows containers provided by the Jenkins project. They experience the same issue as us.

Best regards,

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/AWOPeU4k0DI/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/CANWgJS7N8EjiQjg6zpPYYqbmG6wn3sTV2BGsBFWMHy9j-KCvHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Antonio Muñiz]

> Thanks to Oliver for the decision!

So, is 2.263 the selected one finally?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAPfivLDSiV4cP_GjnNeELs0AkJamnmv3K2ogt0k4JJS2W-Z%2Bpg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Antonio Muñiz

Human, Engineer
CloudBees, Inc.

[Mark Waite]

Yes, 2.263 is the selected baseline for the next Jenkins LTS.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAJc7kzSUo5AT38gLcGHorc_3yXCKSUHbgLzfD2LkdW80WDALFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Radek Antoniuk]

Since the selection took place and I can see 2.263.1 in https://www.jenkins.io/changelog-stable/, shouldn't I see 2.264.x in https://github.com/jenkinsci/bom ?

[Mark Waite]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 9:54 AM Radek Antoniuk <radek.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

Since the selection took place and I can see 2.263.1 in https://www.jenkins.io/changelog-stable/, shouldn't I see 2.264.x in https://github.com/jenkinsci/bom ?

I think that you will eventually see 2.263.x in the bom rather than 2.264.x.  I'm sure that a pull request would be welcomed to include 2.263.x in the bom.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/3a1b4ab9-5622-48b1-8e5d-ec669d889aeen%40googlegroups.com.

[Radek Antoniuk]

Since the selection took place and I can see 2.263.1 in https://www.jenkins.io/changelog-stable/, shouldn't I see 2.264.x in https://github.com/jenkinsci/bom ?

I think that you will eventually see 2.263.x in the bom rather than 2.264.x.  I'm sure that a pull request would be welcomed to include 2.263.x in the bom.

That was indeed a typo, I meant 2.263.x. 

Sure, I'm happy to open a PR but... my question was rather about if the LTS release process should automatically mean that a respective PR should be opened to the bom repository by the release manager who created the LTS release?

In my case, I'm actually waiting for that since that blocks a dependency update (although I actually expected 2.264.x be next LTS, not sure why 2.263 was preferred).

[Mark Waite]

Adding a new release to the plugin BOM is part of the new LTS release checklist that is being developed by Tim Jacomb.  See https://github.com/jenkins-infra/release/pull/122 for the initial pull request and https://github.com/jenkins-infra/release/issues/123 for the first use as preparation for Jenkins 2.263.2.

Jenkins 2.263 was specifically chosen because it did not include the significant changes that were introduced in 2.264.  Those significant changes are described in https://www.jenkins.io/blog/2020/11/10/major-changes-in-weekly-releases/ and in https://www.jenkins.io/blog/2020/11/10/spring-xstream/ .  We wanted 3 months to work on the changes introduced in 2.264 before they were delivered to LTS users as part of the March 2021 LTS release.

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/CAPe2pWiZWEXzxb0LMKN%3D4QLf_FDegpxB5LE4%3D0RqPv3rA7DKWw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Jacomb]

2.263 is available (and has been for awhile) it’s called bom-latest in the folder structure

And is available under the 2.263.x artifact ID

Thanks

Tim

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CAO49JtG3qYr4Wgxkp%3DCF%2B1Q-h0mtAQM5Y1zfc3bxuHqYiU%3DyZg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Radek Antoniuk]

Since the selection took place and I can see 2.263.1 in https://www.jenkins.io/changelog-stable/, shouldn't I see 2.264.x in https://github.com/jenkinsci/bom ?

I think that you will eventually see 2.263.x in the bom rather than 2.264.x.  I'm sure that a pull request would be welcomed to include 2.263.x in the bom.

That was indeed a typo, I meant 2.263.x. 

Sure, I'm happy to open a PR but... my question was rather about if the LTS release process should automatically mean that a respective PR should be opened to the bom repository by the release manager who created the LTS release?

In my case, I'm actually waiting for that since that blocks a dependency update (although I actually expected 2.264.x be next LTS, not sure why 2.263 was preferred).

Adding a new release to the plugin BOM is part of the new LTS release checklist that is being developed by Tim Jacomb.  See https://github.com/jenkins-infra/release/pull/122 for the initial pull request and https://github.com/jenkins-infra/release/issues/123 for the first use as preparation for Jenkins 2.263.2.

Jenkins 2.263 was specifically chosen because it did not include the significant changes that were introduced in 2.264.  Those significant changes are described in https://www.jenkins.io/blog/2020/11/10/major-changes-in-weekly-releases/ and in https://www.jenkins.io/blog/2020/11/10/spring-xstream/ .  We wanted 3 months to work on the changes introduced in 2.264 before they were delivered to LTS users as part of the March 2021 LTS release.

 

2.263 is available (and has been for awhile) it’s called bom-latest in the folder structure

And is available under the 2.263.x artifact ID

Indeed, I blindly assumed that bom-latest is for the upcoming new LTS, not the one that was already released.

Thanks Mark & Tim for explanations.