Update: - License issue has been fixed- Thanks Rob! - Postinstall script is broken, Jeff and Dan are looking at it.
Once post install is fixed, I will cut an RC —Eric > On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Dewayne Richardson <dewr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Robert Butts <robert.o.bu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 >> I didn't realize it was new. >> >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:43 AM, David Neuman <david.neuma...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Since the Cookie Jar functionality is new to 2.0 and 2.0 is not yet >>>> released, why don't we just remove the `ResumeSession` method all >>> together >>>> and eliminate the dependency? Otherwise we are deprecating something >>> that >>>> we never formally released. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Robert Butts <robert.o.bu...@gmail.com >>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Regarding `TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license issue`: >>>>> >>>>> It looks like the persistent cookie jar is only needed by Traffic Ops >>>>> Client `ResumeSession(toURL string, insecure bool) (*Session, error)`. >>>>> Nothing in Traffic Control uses `ResumeSession`, and I doubt anyone >>> else is >>>>> using it. Because it returns an error, and persisted cookies have >>>>> lifetimes, any current users already must handle errors from persisted >>>>> cookies being expired. Thus, we can change it to always return an >> error >>>>> with only degraded performance (and not much, login is cheap), without >>> loss >>>>> of functionality. >>>>> >>>>> To fix TC-119, I propose we document `ResumeSession` as deprecated, >> and >>>>> change it to always return an error, which lets us remove the >>> dependency, >>>>> without the development cost of writing our own persistent cookie >> store >>>>> that no one is using. >>>>> >>>>> Any objections? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeremy Mitchell < >> mitchell...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> These all got fixed and backported to 2.0: >>>>>> >>>>>> TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” >>>>>> TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig >>>>>> TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow >>>>>> >>>>>> So Jan and Dave just need to close the issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Jeffrey Martin < >>> martin.jef...@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Eric, >>>>>>> I was going to address the immediate Postinstall issues TC-185. I >> am >>>>> way >>>>>>> late on this. I created a fork yesterday, need to run a couple of >>> tests >>>>>> and >>>>>>> then I can push to this fork. >>>>>>> Jeff Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >>>>>>> efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have some release blockers for 2.0. Specifically: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license issue >>>>>>>> We cannot ship with Category-X LGPL software, so I’m waiting >>> for >>>>>> this >>>>>>>> to be resolved before cutting a release branch >>>>>>>> "TC-185 post install doesn’t run due to missing perl module” >>>>>>>> We shouldn’t ship a release in which the install process is >>>>> broken >>>>>> in >>>>>>>> this way. >>>>>>>> *There’s no assignee yet for this, any volunteers?* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think if we can get those two taken care of we can cut an RC0 >>> later >>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> week. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Major bugs we will ship with (unless someone objects): >>>>>>>> TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” >>>>>>>> TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig >>>>>>>> TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> —Eric >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good question. I would also like to see us try to get some >>> release >>>>>>>>> candidates out for 2.0. I am pretty sure the actual install >> and >>>>>>>>> postinstall need work. There are also a couple of issue that >>> are >>>>>> still >>>>>>>>> assigned to 2.0 and unresolved: >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TC/fixforversion/ >>>>>>>> 12338562/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects- >>>>>>>> plugin:version-summary-panel >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Jan van Doorn < >> j...@knutsel.com >>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When are we planning to release 2.0? We at Comcast are >> running >>>>> what >>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> call 2.0…. So we are +1, I am pretty sure. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eric: are you waiting for something? Which cats need herding? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rgds, >>>>>>>>>> JvD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>
