Hey All, We had some great discussion about the 2.0 release at the summit, I was wondering if anyone had a summary of that discussion and a list of what's left to do that could be added to this thread? I think we discussed that we were going to take another look at 2.0 and see if it is a viable release that we should move forward with, is that everyone else's understanding as well? Does anyone know of any showstopper issues that still exist?
Thanks, Dave On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: > 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >
