[2019-02-13T19:00:39+0100] <@danielbeck> #startmeeting
[2019-02-13T19:00:47+0100] <@danielbeck> huh
[2019-02-13T19:00:50+0100] <@danielbeck> where's the bot?
[2019-02-13T19:01:11+0100] <@danielbeck> anyone else here?
[2019-02-13T19:01:23+0100] <antoinne> I'm here
[2019-02-13T19:01:35+0100] <ogondza> bot on a vacation, it seems
[2019-02-13T19:01:47+0100] <@danielbeck> rtyler any idea where the meeting bot is running?
[2019-02-13T19:02:00+0100] <batmat> o/
[2019-02-13T19:02:02+0100] • tracymiranda: didn't know bots got to take vacations
[2019-02-13T19:02:25+0100] <@danielbeck> it's the new trend, so we survive the machine uprising
[2019-02-13T19:02:26+0100] • batmat: you tyrant
[2019-02-13T19:03:01+0100] <@danielbeck> I guess no rtyler around either, so I guess we'll need to do this manually today.
[2019-02-13T19:03:09+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> o/
[2019-02-13T19:03:26+0100] <@danielbeck> #info https://wiki.jenkins.io/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-Feb13
[2019-02-13T19:03:33+0100] <@danielbeck> #topic Recap last meeting actions
[2019-02-13T19:03:52+0100] <@danielbeck> well, no meeting on the 30th of Jan it seems
[2019-02-13T19:04:02+0100] <@danielbeck> #info http://meetings.jenkins-ci.org/jenkins-meeting/2019/jenkins-meeting.2019-01-16-18.00.html
[2019-02-13T19:04:13+0100] <@danielbeck> kohsuke around? Did you write to Rick?
[2019-02-13T19:04:56+0100] <@danielbeck> doesn't look like it, so let's move on
[2019-02-13T19:05:02+0100] <@danielbeck> #topic LTS status check and baseline selection
[2019-02-13T19:05:10+0100] <@danielbeck> ogondza please tell me you're around
[2019-02-13T19:05:18+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> There was a meeting on Jan 30 IIRC
[2019-02-13T19:05:19+0100] <ogondza> yep
[2019-02-13T19:05:38+0100] <ogondza> There was noone around two weeks back
[2019-02-13T19:05:55+0100] <@danielbeck> I know we don't have a bot around, but could we try to keep to the topics? :)
[2019-02-13T19:06:10+0100] <ogondza> re LTS, the thing was tested and we are ready for .3
[2019-02-13T19:06:15+0100] <@danielbeck> \o/
[2019-02-13T19:06:35+0100] <@danielbeck> #action kohsuke to release 2.150.3
[2019-02-13T19:06:44+0100] <@danielbeck> (I will ping him after this)
[2019-02-13T19:07:15+0100] <@danielbeck> This means we now need to select the new LTS baseline per https://jenkins.io/download/lts/#model
[2019-02-13T19:07:23+0100] <@danielbeck> any suggestions?
[2019-02-13T19:07:29+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> #info https://jenkins.io/changelog/
[2019-02-13T19:07:43+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> 2.164 looks good so far
[2019-02-13T19:07:58+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> My preference would be to have 2.164 or 2.163 as a baseline
[2019-02-13T19:08:23+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> We would need it for Java 11 support in LTS should we want to announce it in the next LTS baseline
[2019-02-13T19:08:34+0100] <@danielbeck> do we have enough Java 11 feedback from 2.163 re JAXB plugin detachment, including with plugin dependencies and such?
[2019-02-13T19:09:10+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> We do not have telemetry for it so far, but the detachment action should NOT impact Java 8 users
[2019-02-13T19:09:14+0100] <batmat> depends if you mean "no issue reported" qualifies as feedback
[2019-02-13T19:09:35+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> batmat implemented it in a way that JAXB does not appear as a detached dependency for Java 8 users
[2019-02-13T19:09:55+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Hence users will avoid issues like jdk-tool in Docker last year
[2019-02-13T19:10:06+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> And yes, no issues reported
[2019-02-13T19:10:25+0100] <@danielbeck> sounds good. no concerns about 2.164 then from my side.
[2019-02-13T19:11:01+0100] <@danielbeck> ogondza ?
[2019-02-13T19:11:01+0100] <ogondza> oleg-nenashev: does 2.164 something java11 specific except for the flag requirement removed?
[2019-02-13T19:11:24+0100] <@danielbeck> back to default update center
[2019-02-13T19:12:05+0100] <ogondza> danielbeck: not sure I am following you
[2019-02-13T19:12:18+0100] <@danielbeck> To clarify, "Jenkins now uses the standard update center by default when running with Java 11."
[2019-02-13T19:12:29+0100] <@danielbeck> so it's actually removing Java 11 related special behavior
[2019-02-13T19:12:29+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> ogondza danielbeck Yes, just some reverts
[2019-02-13T19:12:54+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Reverts are backportable to 2.163.x if we want to take 2.163 as a baseline
[2019-02-13T19:13:07+0100] <@danielbeck> all the changes in 2.164 look reasonable, unless something weird like apache mina regressions pops up
[2019-02-13T19:14:10+0100] <ogondza> yeah, when we should go with 2.163 it should better be with component updates (mina, remoting)
[2019-02-13T19:14:19+0100] <ogondza> s/with/without/ or course
[2019-02-13T19:14:46+0100] <@danielbeck> remoting looks trivial -- https://github.com/jenkinsci/remoting/pull/316/files
[2019-02-13T19:15:02+0100] <ogondza> indeed
[2019-02-13T19:15:12+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> MINA patch should not impact the default flow if a system property is not set
[2019-02-13T19:15:39+0100] <@danielbeck> right, I misread that as a Mina update, when it's not
[2019-02-13T19:15:41+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> JENKINS-55050 would be my main concern about 2.164 TBH
[2019-02-13T19:15:41+0100] <@danielbeck> https://github.com/jenkinsci/sshd-module/pull/26/files
[2019-02-13T19:16:02+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> JENKINS-55050 is just a serious change inside the core
[2019-02-13T19:16:16+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> But I believe we would like to get it backported anyway
[2019-02-13T19:16:27+0100] <@danielbeck> oh, good point
[2019-02-13T19:16:29+0100] <@danielbeck> hold on
[2019-02-13T19:16:48+0100] <@rtyler> I /names
[2019-02-13T19:16:50+0100] <@rtyler> derps
[2019-02-13T19:17:07+0100] <@danielbeck> I think I saw an issue related to the security fix, unsure what release though
[2019-02-13T19:17:11+0100] <@rtyler> I'll see what's up with the meetingbot, I hadn't noticed that it went on vacation
[2019-02-13T19:18:00+0100] <ogondza> I do not feel strongly against 2.164, the changes indeed looks minor
[2019-02-13T19:18:08+0100] <batmat> \o/
[2019-02-13T19:18:26+0100] <@danielbeck> nvm, https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-56114 is in 2.150.2, so not in the weekly due to 2.164
[2019-02-13T19:19:12+0100] <@danielbeck> so yeah, would recommend we decide on 2.164 with the usual provision that in case we notice it's garbage in the next two weeks we'll reconsider
[2019-02-13T19:19:27+0100] <ogondza> as always
[2019-02-13T19:19:29+0100] <ogondza> fine with me
[2019-02-13T19:19:37+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> +1 for 2.164
[2019-02-13T19:19:49+0100] <@danielbeck> +1 for 2.164
[2019-02-13T19:20:09+0100] <@danielbeck> any further opinions? now's the time to speak up
[2019-02-13T19:20:25+0100] • rtyler: has no opinions (on this subject)
[2019-02-13T19:20:52+0100] <ogondza> going once
[2019-02-13T19:21:17+0100] <@danielbeck> going twice
[2019-02-13T19:21:38+0100] <@danielbeck> #agreed next LTS baseline with be 2.164
[2019-02-13T19:21:44+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> yey
[2019-02-13T19:21:51+0100] <@danielbeck> #action ogondza to update calendar with 2.164 based releases
[2019-02-13T19:22:21+0100] <@danielbeck> #topic Java 11 Support Update && GA support in the new LTS baseline
[2019-02-13T19:22:25+0100] <@danielbeck> oleg-nenashev this is yours
[2019-02-13T19:22:30+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> OK, that's me
[2019-02-13T19:23:01+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Since we head towards 2.164.1, it means that there will be a silent launch of Java 11 support in 4 weeks
[2019-02-13T19:23:12+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> I want to make sure everybody is fine with that
[2019-02-13T19:23:48+0100] <batmat> fine by me, obviously (disclaimer: I participated in that initiative)
[2019-02-13T19:23:56+0100] <@danielbeck> what does that mean exactly?
[2019-02-13T19:23:57+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> We will have a discussion about it at the Platform SIG meeting tomorrow, but the things look good so far
[2019-02-13T19:24:18+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> silent launch = you will not receive a warning if you start Jenkins with Java 11
[2019-02-13T19:24:59+0100] <@danielbeck> why not a loud launch? :)
[2019-02-13T19:25:24+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> We have not finished PCT and ATH runs analysis for 2.164
[2019-02-13T19:25:38+0100] <@danielbeck> makes sense, thanks
[2019-02-13T19:25:48+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> We might be able to finish it by .1, and then we could have a loud launch if we want
[2019-02-13T19:26:08+0100] <ogondza> should we expedite the ATH results so we can celebrate>
[2019-02-13T19:26:11+0100] <ogondza> ?
[2019-02-13T19:26:28+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> ogondza: Would be great. There is a patch from Ramon waiting for merge
[2019-02-13T19:26:56+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> It is related to JAXB changes in 2.163. And that's why we need to update our tooling again
[2019-02-13T19:27:10+0100] <ogondza> we will have a look at that
[2019-02-13T19:27:10+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> No more manual library additions, yey!
[2019-02-13T19:27:25+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> #info https://github.com/jenkinsci/acceptance-test-harness/pull/478
[2019-02-13T19:28:14+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> If we discover major issues with Java 11, we can revert Extras Executable WAR update at any moment
[2019-02-13T19:28:54+0100] <@danielbeck> sounds great
[2019-02-13T19:28:54+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> So, if nobody is against, I would like to proceed with the current state of 2.164.1 target
[2019-02-13T19:29:10+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> And be sure we will contribute a lot to RC testing this time :)
[2019-02-13T19:29:39+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Any questions? Is anybody against?
[2019-02-13T19:29:53+0100] <@danielbeck> I don't think there's an #agreed/#action to record here? Just reaffirming 2.164 will be the baseline (including executable-war change), and move on?
[2019-02-13T19:30:18+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> fine with me
[2019-02-13T19:30:36+0100] <@danielbeck> let's move on then
[2019-02-13T19:30:38+0100] <@danielbeck> #topic Outreachy update & next application period
[2019-02-13T19:30:41+0100] <@danielbeck> tracymiranda this is yours
[2019-02-13T19:30:46+0100] <@danielbeck> #info https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jenkinsci-dev/yaPrguId_sY/lSs7mHaxAAAJ
[2019-02-13T19:30:50+0100] <tracymiranda> thanks
[2019-02-13T19:31:09+0100] <tracymiranda> yes so current stage of outreachy is going well with our 2 interns
[2019-02-13T19:31:19+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> or "we proceed with Java 11 silent launch in 2.164.1 unless major issues are discovered. Revert or Loud Launch may be considered as options depending on the testing reults"
[2019-02-13T19:31:27+0100] • oleg-nenashev: is bad at typing
[2019-02-13T19:31:34+0100] <tracymiranda> i'll wait...
[2019-02-13T19:32:53+0100] <@danielbeck> oleg-nenashev I think "let's keep all options open and start with doing nothing" doesn't need much agreement ;-)
[2019-02-13T19:33:13+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> :D
[2019-02-13T19:33:18+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> thanks tracymiranda
[2019-02-13T19:33:24+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> and sorry for interruption
[2019-02-13T19:33:24+0100] <@danielbeck> "nothing" meaning backing out executable-war, creating blog post, etc. -- right now we're on track for silent launch
[2019-02-13T19:33:35+0100] <@danielbeck> tracymiranda please go ahead
[2019-02-13T19:33:41+0100] <tracymiranda> Thanks
[2019-02-13T19:34:11+0100] <tracymiranda> OK so outreachy - all is going well - last month we passed the mid-point feedback point for our interns
[2019-02-13T19:34:23+0100] <tracymiranda> And time has come to consider next round
[2019-02-13T19:34:43+0100] <tracymiranda> Matt Sicker has been doing excellent job as lead mentor and is keen to carry on
[2019-02-13T19:34:55+0100] • rtyler: claps
[2019-02-13T19:35:12+0100] <tracymiranda> But this depends on being able to fund another round
[2019-02-13T19:35:27+0100] <tracymiranda> Also conscious of the overlap with GSoc too... so want to see how best to manage that
[2019-02-13T19:35:36+0100] <@rtyler> from a budget standpoint we can fund another Outreachy round
[2019-02-13T19:35:51+0100] <tracymiranda> that's great to hear
[2019-02-13T19:36:06+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> If we can fund only 1 round, next winter might be preferable
[2019-02-13T19:36:07+0100] <@rtyler> were we to join the CDF, I'm not sure how the transfer of assets or effect on our ability to pay things will work out during such a transition period
[2019-02-13T19:36:33+0100] <@danielbeck> We pay 1 intern and outreachy might pay another? Or would we commit to paying for 2?
[2019-02-13T19:36:38+0100] <tracymiranda> for cdf & gsoc I asked and that was no problem because of googles involvement
[2019-02-13T19:36:49+0100] <tracymiranda> I think we can commit to 1 and see what happens
[2019-02-13T19:37:02+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> So, same as last time
[2019-02-13T19:37:09+0100] <tracymiranda> I might be interested to see if we can do more on a docs like project as might have some mentors to tap into for that...
[2019-02-13T19:37:24+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> We got the second student thanks to fundraising by outreachy
[2019-02-13T19:37:47+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> tracymiranda: GSoC has a big pool of projects this year
[2019-02-13T19:37:57+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> It is clear that not all projects will be accepted
[2019-02-13T19:38:10+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> We could try having a shared pool this year
[2019-02-13T19:38:42+0100] <tracymiranda> Similar to gsoc, I think I should ask about outreachy and potential move to CDF too and see if any issues with transition...
[2019-02-13T19:38:56+0100] <tracymiranda> shared pool sounds good
[2019-02-13T19:39:11+0100] <tracymiranda> yes, very impressive list of gsoc projects
[2019-02-13T19:40:10+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> #info https://jenkins.io/projects/gsoc/2019/project-ideas/
[2019-02-13T19:40:15+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> We can add more there
[2019-02-13T19:40:23+0100] <tracymiranda> OK first off here's what I propose
[2019-02-13T19:40:34+0100] <tracymiranda> I contact Outreachy and ask about the CDF transition
[2019-02-13T19:40:52+0100] <tracymiranda> If no red flags expect we can proceed with next round with 1 slot
[2019-02-13T19:41:03+0100] <@rtyler> that makes sense to me
[2019-02-13T19:41:16+0100] <tracymiranda> Propose a set of projects that may include some from gsoc pool?
[2019-02-13T19:42:46+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> +1
[2019-02-13T19:43:02+0100] <@rtyler> if the gsoc peeps are fine with that, I'm fine with that :)
[2019-02-13T19:43:49+0100] <tracymiranda> let me also examine dates for how these two overlap, homework before next meeting
[2019-02-13T19:43:55+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Well, we can figure it out with tracymiranda at the next meeting to make 100% sure that all org admins are okay
[2019-02-13T19:44:24+0100] <tracymiranda> +1
[2019-02-13T19:44:26+0100] <tracymiranda> then next meeting will also do formal ask for budget assuming no problem with cdf transition
[2019-02-13T19:45:36+0100] <@rtyler> sounds good
[2019-02-13T19:45:40+0100] <@danielbeck> #action tracymiranda to ask outreachy about impact of move to CDF
[2019-02-13T19:45:43+0100] <@rtyler> shall we move on?
[2019-02-13T19:46:03+0100] <tracymiranda> yes,
[2019-02-13T19:46:06+0100] <@danielbeck> tracymiranda who will propose set of projects? You?
[2019-02-13T19:46:39+0100] <tracymiranda> I'll solicit some from community...
[2019-02-13T19:46:48+0100] <@danielbeck> ok
[2019-02-13T19:47:04+0100] <@danielbeck> and anything further around the next meeting then?
[2019-02-13T19:47:53+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> "GSoC update (Oleg Nenashev )" ?
[2019-02-13T19:48:09+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> But it is quick
[2019-02-13T19:48:25+0100] <@danielbeck> was hoping I could get clarification on AI but we can move on to that
[2019-02-13T19:49:11+0100] <@danielbeck> #topic GSoC update
[2019-02-13T19:49:17+0100] <@danielbeck> oleg-nenashev please proceed
[2019-02-13T19:49:48+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> So, we have applied to GSoC 2019. ETA for the Google's decision -Feb 26
[2019-02-13T19:50:02+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Meanwhile we still accept project ideas and welcome new mentors
[2019-02-13T19:50:28+0100] • rtyler: claps
[2019-02-13T19:50:45+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Meanwhile we have 27 project ideas and close to 30 mentors
[2019-02-13T19:51:00+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Some are still yet to be published tho
[2019-02-13T19:51:03+0100] <tracymiranda> bravo!
[2019-02-13T19:51:03+0100] <@danielbeck> O_O
[2019-02-13T19:51:06+0100] <@danielbeck> wow
[2019-02-13T19:51:23+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Yeah, it's gonna be big if we are accepted
[2019-02-13T19:51:46+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> I also did a Role Strategy release on Tuesday, which was fully powered by GSoC contributions
[2019-02-13T19:52:04+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> So we get some nice progress even now
[2019-02-13T19:53:22+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> I will be bringing in some new contributors, stay tuned
[2019-02-13T19:53:38+0100] <@danielbeck> #info https://plugins.jenkins.io/role-strategy#RoleStrategyPlugin-Version2.10(Feb11,2019)
[2019-02-13T19:53:39+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> BTW, does anyone want a Jenkins online hackathon site? :)
[2019-02-13T19:54:01+0100] <@danielbeck> oleg-nenashev probably best discussed elsewhere
[2019-02-13T19:54:12+0100] <@danielbeck> oleg-nenashev anything else on GSoC? More bragging? :)
[2019-02-13T19:54:17+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Yes. We discussed it at Advocacy and Outreach SIG meeting
[2019-02-13T19:54:29+0100] <@oleg-nenashev> Nope, no more bragging from me
[2019-02-13T19:54:42+0100] <@danielbeck> plenty of good news though
[2019-02-13T19:54:50+0100] <@danielbeck> #topic next meeting
[2019-02-13T19:55:07+0100] <@danielbeck> that would be Feb 27, same time, same place
[2019-02-13T19:55:25+0100] <@danielbeck> #endmeeting