18:00:01 #startmeeting 18:00:01 Let the Jenkins meeting commence! 18:00:08 #chair danielbeck kohsuke hare_brain 18:00:08 Current chairs: danielbeck hare_brain kohsuke rtyler 18:00:13 #chair ogondza 18:00:13 Current chairs: danielbeck hare_brain kohsuke ogondza rtyler 18:00:23 #topic Last meeting actions 18:00:34 last meeting notes: http://meetings.jenkins-ci.org/jenkins-meeting/2017/jenkins-meeting.2017-05-10-18.00.html 18:01:36 danielbeck: i'm assuming you wrote the changelog? :) 18:02:14 he did 18:02:30 there was also some LTS related stuff 18:02:35 2.60 was released as discussed 18:02:46 ogondza: you awake and with us? :) 18:02:49 It is fine, hence it can be an LTS baseline 18:03:19 * rtyler sounds the alarm 18:03:21 yes, there is separate item for baseline discusion 18:03:21 wake up people :) 18:03:31 later today 18:03:37 +1 18:03:51 was just summarizing the results of our action items 18:03:53 do we have any more last meeting actions? 18:03:54 o/ 18:04:01 I can move on to the meatier topics 18:04:26 #topic LTS status check 18:04:31 ogondza: you're up buddy :) 18:04:40 i'm hoping danielbeck is also awake 18:04:56 the testing have not revealed any problems 18:05:10 thanks Oleg, for your update 18:05:14 forgive my ignorance, this would be with 2.46.3? 18:05:20 I am happy to help 18:05:25 the problems we are seeing are infra related 18:05:36 Though my instance does not run much Pipeline stuff so far 18:05:53 yes, I guess what I am saying is is 2.46.3 is good to be released 18:05:55 rtyler>: yep, 2.46.3 18:06:21 🚢 🇮🇹 18:06:50 ogondza: wunderbar \o/ 18:07:03 #info 2.46.3 is ready to be released according to ogondza 18:07:18 #action kohsuke, please release the .3 18:07:42 kohsuke is in APAC timezone now AFAIK 18:08:05 right 18:08:27 that is it from me 18:08:44 LTS election? 18:08:46 #topic Next LTS baseline selectin 18:09:31 IIRC we cut .60 with accumulated changes to be tested and used as conservative baseline 18:09:47 So, as we discussed at the last meeting, there is an interest to have 2.60 due to the new API required for the Pipeline job disabling stuff. CC abayer jglick 18:09:47 if things go well we will consider .61 18:10:01 2.61 didn't go well 18:10:04 heh 18:10:18 2.58 was a conservative baseline IIRC 18:10:49 And the plan was to select between 2.58 and 2.60 if the latter once is good enough 18:10:59 I've pinged danielbeck try to to awaken him too 18:11:21 2.60 sounds good to me unless there was some known problem with it. 18:11:28 Stats in 2.60: 62 suns & 2 clouds, the linked issue is unrelated to the core 18:11:50 right 18:12:05 Yup, `ssh-slaves`. 18:12:13 there is JENKINS-44120 regression in 2.59 (fixed in 2.61), but it can be easily backported 18:12:20 I was just about to say.. 18:13:25 IMHO 2.60 is a fine choice 18:13:29 Yep 18:13:29 I am ok with .60 18:13:41 Jesse, seems to agree 18:13:44 any objections from those who are awake on 2.60 being the next LTS baseline? 18:13:57 kk and Daniel are gone. sound approved to me :P 18:14:00 The only risk is a relatively new TrileadSSH-2, but I think we can backport regressions if they appear 18:14:00 https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/2888 simple Trilead version bump IIUC. 18:14:17 +1 for 2.60 from me 18:14:19 +1 from me for 2.60. 18:14:43 #agreed Next lts will be 2.60 18:14:47 \o/ 18:14:58 #action ogondza to initiate the new LTS line 18:15:11 that was quick 18:15:22 w00t 18:15:24 alrighty 18:15:33 #topic s - R. Tyler Croy, Olivier Vernin 18:15:34 * oleg-nenashev considers adding a java 9 alpha migration proposal to the next meeting. Just to get more people in the room 18:15:38 damnit 18:15:43 bad copy paste 18:15:50 #topic Purchasing a SendGrid account to send project emails from Azure-based applications 18:15:53 there we go 18:16:02 olblak: would you provide the background on this topic plz 18:16:09 Is there an email thread link? 18:16:15 no 18:16:21 not uyet 18:16:23 not yet 18:16:27 this was discussed originally in the infra sync meeting on Monday :) 18:16:33 that you slept through oleg-nenashev xD 18:16:37 which I missed.... 18:16:38 at the moment we can only send email from OSUOSL network 18:16:52 and we would like to send emails from azure network 18:17:06 s/would like/need/ 18:17:23 indeed need 18:17:26 +1. must-have since we move to Azure 18:17:34 So, what's the price? 18:17:49 I was about to ask olblak that too :) 18:18:05 And any chance SendGrid sponsors it just in case? 18:18:14 I don't have any friends to beg at sendgrid :) 18:18:23 10$ per month 18:18:31 with that we can send 40000 emails per month 18:18:33 #info if anybody has a friend at sendgrid or knows if they support open source projects, reach out to me on infra@lists.jenkins-ci.org 18:18:43 which I think is enough 18:18:48 10 bucks does not worth wasting time 18:18:48 so $120 per year to send project emails from azure, that seems very reasonable to me 18:18:51 haha 18:19:07 any objections to spending $10 a month to send emails from Azure based applications? 18:19:19 +1 18:19:23 +1 18:20:02 * rtyler waits one more minute or two 18:20:09 +1 18:20:41 #agreed we'll spend a little bit of money on sendgrid for azure-based infrastructure 18:21:05 #topic Add olblak as an admin in LDAP and provide access to jenkins-keys ( 18:21:12 this is another infrastructure related topic 18:21:24 olblak has been doing a lot of infrastructure work and helping out quite a bit 18:21:36 I would like to enable his access to administrative level functions in project infrastructure 18:21:42 Any chance we get his time to review account creation requests? :) 18:21:53 :) 18:22:00 this will reduce the bus factor on me, but also make some work easier for olblak I believe 18:22:09 oleg-nenashev: not sure, that's up to olblak whether he wants to help with that 18:22:18 This is something where I can help 18:22:18 ack 18:22:39 At least we will have someone whom we can ping in the EU TZ 18:23:03 I fully support olblak becoming an infra admin 18:23:14 if you support it, I'm fine with it. 18:23:15 Does Jenkins keys allow to decrypt the usage stats raw data? 18:23:26 no 18:23:45 jenkins-keys is what decrypts all the api keys, private keys, etc for the puppet infrastructure 18:23:51 then I'm fine with that 18:23:52 right now kohsuke and I only have access to that 18:24:47 any concerns or questions I could answer 18:25:30 +1 for granting access 18:25:36 rtyler sorry I missed the start of this meeting 18:26:05 +1 on more infra admins 18:26:18 belated +1 for 2.60 18:26:21 #agreed olblak to be granted infra admin access 18:26:46 oleg-nenashev: did you want to bring up admin access for you as well in this meeting? 18:27:00 Why not since we have time? CC batmat 18:27:10 #topic Grant LDAP admin access to oleg-nenashev 18:27:29 for background, LDAP admin access is required in order to properly process new accounts which look suspicious or spammy 18:27:36 belated +1 for sendgrid 18:27:42 I am ready to help with reviewing account creation requests. As rtyler says, it requires admin access to LDAP right now 18:27:54 the reason I wanted to discuss this in this meeting is that those with account admin access have jenkins account superuser permissions 18:28:22 so potentially I can break everything 18:28:25 but I trust oleg-nenashev to do the right things, so I fully support granting him LDAP admin access 18:28:25 what does this imply exactly? Jira admin, Confluence admin, elevated infra access? 18:28:52 * oleg-nenashev does not trust himself though 18:29:02 danielbeck: access to jira admin, confluence admin, accounts admin, and the puppet dashboard if oleg-nenashev could find it :p 18:29:04 Good news : we have backups 18:30:17 the people who have this access right now are larrys, abayer, board members, and officers IIRC 18:30:24 In longer-term we need configuration as code && public repo with PRs IMHO 18:30:36 rtyler is this an inherent requirement, or just a current account app restriction? I mean it basically needs account registration privileges which anyone can do 18:30:39 But it is a moonshot 18:30:46 + reset email 18:30:58 danielbeck: it is an inherent requirement in how the account-app is structured right now 18:31:15 I 'm not volunteering to "fix" the account-app for its many problems, this included, however :) 18:32:27 I am not concerned about oleg 18:32:31 so +1 18:32:56 but it would be nice if we could open this up further, decoupling all of the admin access from approving signup requests 18:33:06 danielbeck: are you volunteering to make that feasible? :D 18:33:15 I'm not sure yet 18:33:43 But I know that I finally admitted to myself earlier this week that I'm not handling signup requests 18:33:53 heh 18:34:03 it sounds like we're in agreement on oleg-nenashev getting some super powers here 18:34:13 +0 18:34:25 but happy to help anyway 18:34:28 unless Oleg is made of time he won't be able to handle them all either, so we're going to be back here in a few weeks 18:34:57 likely 18:35:09 #action rtyler to grant oleg-nenashev superpowers 18:35:24 #agreed oleg-nenashev to get superpowers 18:35:27 any other topics? 18:35:32 #action rtyler to teach oleg-nenashev how to use these superpowers 18:35:57 Likely a documentation work for both of us 18:36:05 +1 18:36:37 #topic Next meeting 18:36:55 June 7th looks like the next point on the calendar 18:37:19 no major events afaik 18:37:31 #info June 7th is the next meeting, same time same place 18:37:36 see y'all later 18:37:38 #endmeeting