19:01:23 #startmeeting 19:01:23 Let the Jenkins meeting commence! 19:01:27 davidcramer: honestly, but examining the source 19:01:29 #info https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda 19:01:30 *by 19:01:55 #topic name grant request take 2 19:02:37 #info in the previous meeting I've asked for "Jenkins Multi-master by CloudBees" and that subsequently got approved 19:02:54 is there already a candidate for the next LTS release? 19:03:07 scl: we'll get to it, that's the next topic 19:03:15 so just hold on to that thought for 5 more minutes 19:03:24 no problem 19:03:38 and our folks have been trying that name with prospects and conventions, and their feedback is that the name is just not working 19:04:15 and it also didn't help that we had some heated discussion earlier on leading up to "Jenkins Multi-master by CloudBees" 19:04:38 so CloudBees folks have another round of discussions and they came up with a new name 19:04:55 ... and now I'm looking stupid here asking another name to be approved 19:05:07 ... which is "Jenkins Operations Center by CloudBees" 19:05:34 I'll write to the board list like I did with the last one to get this and approvals recorded, but ... 19:05:52 I also wanted to mention it here in case people have any issues, questions, what not. 19:06:18 It's the same pattern, so I don't have an issue with it. 19:06:24 (the new name still follows the de-factro naming convention guideline) 19:06:55 All right, moving on unless I hear otherwise... 19:07:06 #topic LTS status 19:07:26 jglick told me that ogondza has already reported backporting complete, and that somehow I missed that 19:08:07 #action kohsuke to produce 1.532.1 RC today 19:08:11 yes, I have backported two more issues since then. But we are ready for RC 19:08:46 When are we shooting for that release? 19:09:25 Would a week do, or would it be too short. 19:10:22 I guess we need 1.532.x testing page on https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/LTS+RC+Testing 19:10:43 kohsuke, I'll create it 19:12:15 vjuranek_: ogondza: do you have any time frame in mind? 19:12:56 #action ogondza to create 1.532.x testing page in Wiki 19:13:29 vjuranek_: ogondza: I'm happy to run selenium tests myself to help speed up the validation 19:13:41 I'd love to see the release out sooner than later 19:14:16 maybe I lost him 19:14:16 kohsuke, https://jenkins.ci.cloudbees.com/job/selenium-tests-stable/ should be triggered by scm change 19:14:37 oh good 19:14:40 except it's failing 19:15:10 it's probably flaky tests that need fixing 19:15:30 they are 19:15:58 I guess we can create final releas in a week 19:16:37 ogondza: if you want me to run some of these tests please let me know so that we won't duplicate the effort 19:16:55 I'll run the selenium tests locally anyway 19:17:20 I consider stable branch automatically tested 19:17:29 including selenium 19:17:55 how do you handle these failures? 19:18:08 run them a few times and consider them a pass if it passes at least once? 19:19:01 ws_cleanup is broken at cloudbees only 19:19:08 I usually see around a dozen failure from selenium-tests at any given time when I run them on the last LTS. 19:19:30 But I just know to not take failures too seriously. 19:19:33 the failure are the same on master and stable branch 19:20:16 OK, so the current bar we set is no worse than the test results in the master 19:20:40 can anyone help me with a multi-scm project? 19:21:05 KaibutsuX: there is a meeting going on right now, hang out for a bit 19:21:21 Sounds like all the more reasons for me to go back to selenium-tests anyway 19:21:36 hopefully I get to see why tests are so flaky 19:22:10 #agreed we'll aim for a release in a week 19:22:31 #action kohsuke to look at selenium-tests and try to help maintain it 19:22:35 any more on this topic? 19:22:55 if not, a quick update on commit loss, maybe? 19:23:03 is there anything we can about this page https://jenkins-ci.org/stable-rc 19:23:31 as already pointed out, there is not stated what version we are testing 19:23:31 ogondza: when I produce an RC build this page will automatically point to 1.532.1 RC 19:23:39 Ah 19:23:45 Yeah, that I can fix 19:24:00 list of incoming changes would be great 19:24:09 #action kohsuke to make sure https://jenkins-ci.org/stable-rc shows the RC version number 19:24:35 for early adopters 19:24:37 Right, I probably need to do something to make sure https://jenkins-ci.org/changelog-stable shows 1.532.1 as the upcoming release 19:24:52 Hoping some automation somewhere I set does that for me 19:25:28 #action kohsuke to make sure https://jenkins-ci.org/changelog-stable shows 1.532.1 changes after posting RC 19:25:57 #topic commit loss status updates 19:26:43 #info so in case people haven't been paying attention to the dev list, on Saturday an accident resulted in the effective "git push -f" on a large number of repositories in the jenkinsci org 19:27:04 and we are all quite thankful for the work you put in to recover from it! 19:27:20 #info ... resulting in us losing about a month worth of commits in various branches 19:27:55 #info GitHub support helped us recover a large number of it, although exactly how they identify what commits, we don't know 19:28:33 #info and I wrote a program that reconstructs what commits were lost from GitHub API and resurrected the rest of the commits that GitHub support missed 19:29:01 #info At this moment we consider all commits recovered in all the branches in all the repositories 19:29:21 #info but your checking sanity on this claim by looking at your repositories would be greatly appreciated 19:29:52 and there's a thread on the dev list about how to prevent this in the future 19:30:23 kpfleming: thanks. it was an "interesting" distraction! 19:30:52 #info we'll write up something and post it on http://jenkins-ci.org/node 19:31:16 ... to assure people and what not 19:31:43 that's the update from me. any questions? 19:31:58 one of my friends commented that if you were still using subversion this would not have happened :-) 19:32:06 kpfleming: yes indeed 19:32:23 Was 1.539 cut before or after this? 19:32:29 Subversion guys have gotten somethings right! 19:32:47 And does this mean extra diligence for 1.540? 19:32:59 hare_brain: when I was running the release Monday I was unaware of this 19:33:34 but we do know now that the core repository was not one of the affected repositories 19:33:44 so 1.539 is as it's meant 19:33:58 I'll double check 1.540 but I'm pretty sure it's pointing at where it should, too 19:34:42 ok, moving on.. 19:34:49 #topic next meeting 19:35:06 oh look, the first time I've seen the # of people in this room above 300 19:35:21 Next schedule puts us the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. 19:35:31 Do you want to skip, or push out by a week? 19:35:32 ... which means we'll probably skip that 19:35:58 I think it's OK to skip all the way to Dec 11th 19:36:06 Just because I'm too lazy to update my calendar :-) 19:36:16 That's too of us. :) 19:36:17 two 19:36:26 11th would probably be the last for the year. 19:36:28 +1 19:36:37 Wow, we are good at colliding with holidays 19:36:58 #agreed next meeting is Dec 11th 19:37:03 OK, that's it I think 19:37:08 Thank you thank you thank you 19:37:11 #endmeeting