Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update bundled trilead-api to 2.84.86.vf9c960e9b_458 #9022

Merged

Conversation

daniel-beck
Copy link
Member

@daniel-beck daniel-beck commented Mar 8, 2024

See SECURITY-3333 and https://github.com/jenkinsci/trilead-api-plugin/releases/tag/2.84.86.vf9c960e9b_458

Testing done

Un-@Ignored LoadDetachedPluginsTest#noUpdateSiteWarnings. Failed before this change, passed after.

Proposed changelog entries

  • Update bundled Trilead API Plugin to 2.84.86.vf9c960e9b_458.

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Edit tasklist title
Beta Give feedback Tasklist Submitter checklist, more options

Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist block?
Are you sure? All relationships in this tasklist will be removed.
  1. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
    Options
  2. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
    Options
  3. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
    Options

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Edit tasklist title
Beta Give feedback Tasklist Maintainer checklist, more options

Delete tasklist

Delete tasklist block?
Are you sure? All relationships in this tasklist will be removed.
  1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
    Options
  2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
    Options
  3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
    Options
  4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
    Options
  5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
    Options
  6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).
    Options

@NotMyFault NotMyFault added the dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file label Mar 8, 2024
@MarkEWaite
Copy link
Contributor

/label ready-for-merge

This PR is now ready for merge. We will merge it after approximately 24 hours if there is no negative feedback.

@comment-ops-bot comment-ops-bot bot added the ready-for-merge The PR is ready to go, and it will be merged soon if there is no negative feedback label Mar 8, 2024
@MarkEWaite MarkEWaite self-assigned this Mar 8, 2024
@MarkEWaite
Copy link
Contributor

MarkEWaite commented Mar 9, 2024

@daniel-beck I think that this should be considered as an LTS candidate because it is updating a component to avoid a security warning for some use cases. Is my thinking correct and if so, should this be proposed for 2.440.2?

Would you be willing to create the Jira ticket that can be used to track it as an LTS candidate or would you prefer that I create that ticket?

@NotMyFault NotMyFault merged commit 3a07440 into jenkinsci:master Mar 9, 2024
16 checks passed
@daniel-beck
Copy link
Member Author

@MarkEWaite I have no preference. Feel free to do it.

@MarkEWaite MarkEWaite added the bug For changelog: Minor bug. Will be listed after features label Mar 12, 2024
@MarkEWaite
Copy link
Contributor

JENKINS-72856 has been created.

@krisstern I'm not sure if it is too late to consider that as a candidate backport for 2.440.2. If it is not selected for backport to 2.440.2, it should be considered as a possible backport for 2.440.3.

@timja do you have strong feelings one way or the other on this proposed backport to 2.440.2?

@krisstern
Copy link
Member

Hi @MarkEWaite,

Either way is fine with me. I have been waiting for @timja's response to see what his opinion on this matter is.

@MarkEWaite
Copy link
Contributor

@krisstern I'm not sure if it is too late to consider that as a candidate backport for 2.440.2. If it is not selected for backport to 2.440.2, it should be considered as a possible backport for 2.440.3.

I think we should reject it for 2.440.2 and consider it for 2.440.3. I don't think that the use case is critical enough to justify another backporting pull request.

krisstern pushed a commit to krisstern/jenkins that referenced this pull request Apr 2, 2024
Co-authored-by: Daniel Beck <daniel-beck@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit 3a07440)
krisstern pushed a commit to krisstern/jenkins that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2024
Co-authored-by: Daniel Beck <daniel-beck@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit 3a07440)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug For changelog: Minor bug. Will be listed after features dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file ready-for-merge The PR is ready to go, and it will be merged soon if there is no negative feedback
Projects
None yet
4 participants