18:00:28 #startmeeting 18:00:28 Let the Jenkins meeting commence! 18:00:38 #chair kohsuke rtyler 18:00:38 Current chairs: danielbeck kohsuke rtyler 18:00:44 hi everyone! 18:00:47 o/ 18:01:18 #topic last meeting's actions 18:01:32 Have we moved agenda outside https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda ? 18:01:45 I posted upgrade guide and changelog for 2.60.1, still a PR, but otherwise ready 18:02:00 oleg-nenashev did rtyler grant you LDAP admin? 18:02:05 nope 18:02:12 bad rtyler 18:02:21 but I didn't ping about it, bad me 18:02:49 doesn't look like he's around anyway, so let's move on 18:02:59 #topic LTS status check 18:03:13 FTR, https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda looks weirdly empty, so I'm going by the usual topics 18:03:25 ogondza you're up 18:03:30 alyssat_: I would like to ask about the JAMbassador thread later if you are around 18:03:41 sorry, I am 18:03:53 the only backport causes some havoc 18:04:13 as long as I understood we will suggest users to update ssh-slaves to .20 18:04:13 oh? 18:04:32 yes, that's repeatedly in the changelog PR 18:04:43 oleg-nenashev: sorry I haven't done anything w/ the Ambassador thread. I've been under water with JW activities 18:04:45 danielbeck: thanks for doing that 18:04:59 alyssat_: ack, np 18:05:06 #info https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/939 (with screenshots of changelog and upgrade guide) 18:05:38 this amendment looks good to me 18:05:43 are we ok to release as it is? (the update to new lts is safe only if updated with plugins) 18:06:03 i do not feel strongly 18:06:08 ogondza I think this is a reasonable approach to take 18:06:41 ogondza is there another option? 18:06:51 I am not hearing any objections so let's do it 18:06:52 It's not like we're prepared to roll back all the SSH changes 18:07:34 #action kohsuke to release 2.60.1 18:07:35 Anyway, Java 8 will cause some negative feedback 18:07:43 oleg-nenashev rtfm 18:07:46 :-) 18:08:05 TFM is fine for me 18:08:07 actually for https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/SSH+Slaves+Plugin you sort of need 1.20 but whatever 18:08:21 jglick WDYM? 18:08:46 But I do not expect everybody to read it. I've already closed a dozen of JIRA tickets for weeklys 18:08:48 well 1.15 sort of needs 1.18 IIUC, and that introduced regressions solved in 1.19 & 1.20 18:09:08 anyway 1.20 is what you will get if you go to update, so does not matter what we say in changelog 18:09:11 jglick what's "1.15"? 18:09:26 `ssh-slaves` 1.15 18:09:47 jglick ah, the yellow note -- more details in the upgrade guide, which says 1.17 needed for Java 8, but 1.20 recommended anyway due to trilead 18:09:56 re: https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/939/files#diff-ba0338ee2c1c6ece3254c750f5394d2aR353 18:10:11 fine 18:10:12 jglick https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/939/files#diff-57e1817c2b21d3dd0a9822dcb0a614acR24 18:10:29 https://github.com/jenkins-infra/jenkins.io/pull/939/files#diff-57e1817c2b21d3dd0a9822dcb0a614acR42 18:10:30 yes 18:10:42 sorry for distraction 18:10:43 BTW, I noticed core declares 1.15 where bundled versions used to be. That i snow unused, right? 18:11:05 https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/blob/master/war/pom.xml#L289 18:11:10 i swhat I am talking about 18:11:16 ogondza it was never a detached plugin so should be obsolete as it would never be auto installed 18:11:53 it will force an update if you are running 1.14- IIUC 18:12:22 I am wondering it makes sense updating for 2.60.1 but it seems it does not 18:12:39 jglick isn't that only if you're older than the detached version, which doesn't apply here? 18:12:56 IIRC we discussed this a while back when stephenc had a PR that looked related but wasn't. 18:12:56 danielbeck: maybe, I can never remember the rules. Not even sure why it is listed here at all. 18:13:20 jglick because it used to be bundled so it's in the default setup. Hence me saying it's obsolete since it wasn't detached. 18:13:27 ack 18:13:39 So mention of it should simply be deleted from the POM. 18:13:54 probably, after investigating how this currently works 18:14:03 a side topic anyway 18:14:11 I don't think any changes here are important enough for a late change and we should just go ahead with what we have 18:14:19 +1 18:14:27 any further opinions? 18:14:51 +1 18:15:01 not from me 18:15:12 #agreed we'll release 2.60.1 as is 18:15:19 #action kohsuke to release 2.60.1 18:15:28 #action danielbeck to finish up changelog and merge that 18:15:52 I think that's it for this release 18:16:09 and this meeting, barring any further last-minute topics? 18:16:35 #topic next meeting 18:16:50 July 5 according to my calendar 18:17:09 #endmeeting