18:00:25 #startmeeting 18:00:25 Let the Jenkins meeting commence! 18:00:33 #topic Last meeting actions 18:00:43 #chair danielbeck kohsuke 18:00:43 Current chairs: danielbeck kohsuke rtyler 18:00:56 last meeting notes can be found here http://meetings.jenkins-ci.org/jenkins-meeting/2017/jenkins-meeting.2017-10-25-17.59.html 18:01:11 and we got an RC 18:01:11 looks like ogondza pushing the RC was the only actual action, which obviously happened :) 18:01:49 yey 18:02:32 I don't think we've got any other older actions to discuss here 18:02:41 agree 18:03:03 #topic LTS status check 18:03:09 It's out 18:03:12 ~6 hours or so ago 18:03:17 IT 18:03:21 everyone should be updating their instance 18:03:41 I did. Worked like a charm 18:03:42 #info 2.73.3 was a security oriented release which went out this morning 18:04:21 this is the last in the 2.73 line yeah? 18:04:25 yes 18:04:37 unless something goes _really_ wrong 18:04:40 heh 18:04:52 is it next time around we choose the next baseline? 18:04:57 today 18:05:01 bumped your topic 18:05:03 oh right, there it is 18:05:21 so I don't think there are any other things to discuss on the current LTS correct? 18:05:26 yes 18:05:29 other than "yay" it's out 18:05:40 as usual in security fixes, we're early 18:06:09 "yay" 18:06:35 I'd like to pause for a minute or two to see if ogondza pops online before our next topic 18:07:05 I'm blaming DST :-/ 18:07:34 timezones are hard amirite 18:07:49 indeed 18:07:56 Well, IIRC danielbeck notified people a while ago to remind that the meetings are in UTC 18:08:19 don't get me started about last week when the US hadn't changed over… everything was off by one hour 18:08:38 do not remind about that... 18:08:41 just set all your clocks to UTC :) 18:09:09 Russia has fixed UTC+3 now. Probably the best law I have ever seen 18:09:20 hah 18:09:28 alright, let's keep going 18:09:38 #topic LTS baseline selection 18:09:44 danielbeck: I'll let you drive this topic 18:09:53 #info http://jenkins-ci.org/changelog 18:10:09 so, obviously, whatever we choose will get today's fixes backported 18:10:34 I have already taken the liberty of adding `lts-candidate` to a bunch of stuff in 2.86 onwards. 18:10:50 2.87+ are green. And 2.88/2.89 have nothing much excepting Security fix 18:10:55 2.86+ suffer from JENKINS-47593 (which is why 2.86 feedback is so bad), otherwise any release looks good 18:11:14 2.88 looks pretty good to me 18:11:24 but hell, why not just 2.89 18:11:26 * rtyler ducks 18:11:30 yes. 18:11:37 2.88 is this Sunday 18:11:42 What is our usual policy? two-week soak? 18:11:43 2.88 makes no sense, as 2.89 is just that + security 18:11:59 jglick for specific fixes. no firm rules on baseline 18:12:03 2.87 or 2.89 IMHO 18:12:16 2.88 has almost nothing inside 18:12:21 TBH I like 2.87 18:12:28 I'm in favor of anything 2.87+ 18:12:30 * rtyler shrugs 18:12:39 I am fine with that 18:13:06 So, vote for 2.87? +1 18:13:15 summoning markewaite, I think he's done some testing on 2.87 lately 18:13:39 2.87 is a little weird in that we would be backporting the security fixes from 2.89, and I marked JENKINS-45977 for backport, so then the only things not there would be Russian localization (likely very safe) and a new sidebar link. 18:14:04 (Hello all This meeting is at 11 on my calendar right now. :| ) 18:14:41 bitwiseman welcome to the time zone chaos fan club 18:15:06 let's look at the differences 18:15:37 the whole point of this is to stay conservative and not invite unproven changes 18:15:39 https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/compare/jenkins-2.87...jenkins-2.88 18:16:14 really barely anything in there 18:16:35 so we could well go with 2.89 18:16:57 We will have 2 weeks till RC in the worst case 18:17:16 Assuming we discover a critical issue in NewView impl, heh 18:17:27 right, and honestly the riskiest change is SECURITY-499, which would be a problem either way 18:17:33 markewaite: have you happened to do much testing with recent cores like 2.87 or later? 18:17:53 rtyler: none, all my testing was with the LTS RC 18:17:58 Backporting the 2.89 advisory on top of 2.87 seems riskier than anything that went into 2.88, really. 18:18:16 :+1 to jglick comment 18:18:27 The main risk in 2.87 (vs. 2.86) seems to be the Stapler/Servlet changes. 18:18:44 rtyler wants 2.87 18:18:46 Much of the rest I already marked `lts-candidate` anyway. 18:18:47 unclear why 18:19:30 jglick shouldn't we have seen problems in stapler by now? 18:19:34 Stapler didn't blow up this time from what I see 18:19:39 I said 2.87+ 18:19:40 danielbeck: probably 18:19:59 FWIW I have no problem with 2.89. 18:20:05 rtyler right, but we were discussing 2.86/2.87 18:20:09 there were a number of issues reported against 2.86 which is why I don't consider it viable 18:20:32 rtyler those are all present in newer releases, except the java.sun.com one 18:20:42 5×JENKINS-47593 2×JENKINS-47393 < these are 2.86 and up 18:20:50 but the fix will need to be in the ec2-plugin anyway 18:21:00 Exactly. 18:21:14 so there's little point in going with an older core for this -- not a core regression per se 18:21:29 ah 18:22:31 one of 2 modes in ec2 plugin uses CommandLauncher, which now needs script approval in 2.86+; and the plugin cannot handle that 18:23:07 oh hey, there's ogondza 18:23:26 at last 18:23:30 \o/ 18:23:30 Are the security fixes from 2.89 going to have to be back ported to the LTS? 18:23:32 Something we would want fixed for weekly users even if LTS were 2.85-, so I see little point in holding up LTS for that. 18:23:41 bitwiseman: yes 18:23:50 jglick +1 18:23:51 (unless 2.89 itself is chosen) 18:24:02 it is unlikely we would go with 2.85-, though 18:24:02 bitwiseman of course we'd backport 2.89 fixes 18:24:21 So, if we're discussing 2.87, is there anything in 2.88 that we would not take? 18:24:36 well, the Russian 18:24:43 and the sidebar link 18:24:54 which is why we were considering 2.89 18:24:59 less backporting work 18:25:08 nothing really risky in 2.88 18:25:19 famous last words (c) 18:25:28 But seriously, I agree in this case 18:25:37 right. I'm just saying if there's nothing risky in 2.88, then a vote for 2.87 is a vote for 2.89 18:25:44 basically 18:26:40 Let me just put in a +1 for 2.89 then. YOLO 18:27:39 +1, why not 18:27:47 +1 we'll need to be somewhat more vigilant about newly reported issues in the next two weeks, but otherwise should be fine 18:27:50 yes, let's go with 2.89 18:27:52 +1 for anything in 2.87...2.89 18:28:21 +1 for 2.89 18:28:23 +1 for 2.89 18:28:30 WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG 18:29:09 that's the spirit 18:29:15 #agreed next LTS will be based on 2.89 18:29:32 #action ogondza will initiate the new LTS line 18:30:30 welp 18:30:34 *drumroll* 18:30:37 shall we move on? 18:30:50 moving on 18:31:03 #topic Jenkins Enhancement Proposals 18:31:29 #info https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/jep-1/jep/1 18:31:46 JEP-1 contains a tremendous amount of work and discussion, so thanks everybody for participating in the process 18:32:03 #info the pull request to master for JEP-1 is : https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/12 18:33:09 the goal of this agenda item is to finalize agreement on this structure so we can start moving forward with it 18:33:20 which jglick and ndeloof have already done :P 18:33:21 though if https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/29 were merged then it would already be in `master` :-) 18:33:22 *claps* 18:34:11 Is there a plan to approve the JEP process? Or **only** the structure? 18:34:30 oleg-nenashev: I don't understand the distinction between those two 18:34:52 1) JEP becomes a formally approved process 18:35:30 2) We approve structure of JEP and give green light to starting drafts, but we still reserve to make changes according to the experience in drafts 18:35:50 #1 is what we're doing here, but that doesn't mean #2 doesn't happen at any point in the future 18:35:55 this should never ever be set in stone 18:35:58 I think changes to format can be done while we're using it 18:36:15 if we notice something doesn't work, revisit the process 18:36:21 yep 18:36:45 Then I just misread "agreement on this structure" as "agreement on JEP structure" 18:36:51 thanks for the clarification 18:36:55 agreed. The process and the format/structure of the documents can change over time. 18:37:31 #info kohsuke's absentee ballot vote for +1 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jenkinsci-dev/5Lmd8GYt40w/tE7FTF-kCAAJ 18:37:56 FWIW, my +1 on JEP-1 18:38:09 I'm obviously +1, and very excited that jglick and ndeloof have already started kicking the tires 18:38:14 +1 as well 18:38:25 can't wait to apply this 18:39:05 +1 on JEP-1 for me 18:39:15 I am +1. I have some reservations, but we need to go forward to enable major contributions. Whatever works. 18:39:44 All my major concerns have been addressed, thanks to bitwiseman, kohsuke and rtyler 18:40:25 +1 18:41:00 orrc ogondza Slide-O-Mix: WDYT? 18:41:11 #info michaelneale (of blueocean fame) sent his absentee ballot too https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jenkinsci-dev/5Lmd8GYt40w/hlwfZqkYBQAJ 18:41:23 of +1 if that wasn't clear 18:41:28 as a reminder to the lurkers, today is your best chance to still stop this ;-) 18:42:04 kudos for the tremendous effort behind all this. Here is my +1 18:42:04 The Jenkins board is onboard, right? 18:42:25 +1 18:42:25 I haven't heard from hare_brain in ages, so 2/3 are :P 18:42:36 I have heard nothing from Dean as well. 2/3 are fine for me 18:44:15 * danielbeck looks at the clock 18:44:20 Probably it's a time to start countdown 18:44:20 heh 18:44:48 Do I have a vote? Do I even need to say +1. 18:44:54 haha 18:45:00 we should have told abayer, he likes to be contrarian 18:45:02 Everybody has a vote 18:45:16 I will ping him 18:45:22 * rtyler facepalms 18:46:04 I'll give abayer a minute to wake up 18:46:36 he's been vaguing following a process like this for declarative pipeline changes in pipeline-model-definition-plugin so I strongly doubt that he'd be a contrarian here :) 18:46:51 but he would have to resist the subconscious urge :P 18:47:19 alright, last call! 18:47:50 I really do want to thank everybody who participated in the process of drafting JEP-1 18:48:05 yeah, thanks all! 18:48:26 I know it was messy at times, and even a bit heated at others, but community building is at times messy :) 18:48:49 +1000 18:48:51 I am really looking forward to some of the big improvements we can develop with JEP as a tool in our community toolbox 18:49:36 #agreed Jenkins Enhancement Proposals as a process (defined in JEP-1) for improving Jenkins 18:49:50 I pinned the repo 18:50:17 #action bitwiseman to merge the JEP-1 pull request and update the draft status appropriately to Final 18:50:37 thanks danielbeck 18:50:41 rtyler - it will be Active not final. 18:50:46 or whatever 18:51:32 because it's process, right 18:51:38 * rtyler has a mushy brain 18:51:41 yes. 18:51:52 and there's still a bit to be done. I'll move it to accepted. 18:52:05 erf, didn't realize we moved to 10am. 18:52:07 shipit 18:52:09 heh 18:52:20 autojack: we didn't move, the US moved 18:52:25 the meeting time hasn't changed :) 18:52:49 #topic Next meeting 18:53:29 as we come up on the holidays, I expect we're going to start skipping a meeting here or there, but looks like Nov 22nd is still a workday in the US :) 18:53:58 #info Nov 22nd, 18:00 UTC 18:54:07 anything else before we call it a day? 18:54:42 going once... 18:54:53 going twice..... 18:55:04 #endmeeting