Maybe we also want to backport JENKINS-49737 <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-49737> ("Extras Executable WAR should warn everybody that Java 9+ is not supported") to this or next LTS. It is not a defect, but it gets extremely annoying to process reports about Java 9/10 failures.
Full diff: https://github.com/jenkinsci/extras-executable-war/compare/executable-war-1.37...executable-war-1.38 BR, Oleg On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 5:41:59 PM UTC+2, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > > Agreed, changing web.xml is not a blocker for backporting > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 4:54:17 PM UTC+2, Jesse Glick wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Oliver Gondža <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > the possible breakage is limited to the people that >> > are using custom [web.xml] >> >> Yes. (Is this even supported?) >> >> > and only when they use it to pass system properties >> >> I do not think so—if they use an old `web.xml` with the new >> `jenkins-core.jar` then it will try to attach `SystemProperties` (the >> outer class), which is no longer a `ServletListener` so I presume this >> would fail startup. >> >> > the people with custom web.xml needs to change it every now and then so >> the >> > real question is if asking them to do so in one LTS line is such big >> deal. >> >> Otherwise they would just need to change it on upgrade to (e.g.) >> 2.119.1, so what is the difference? Just something we mention in the >> upgrade guide. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/97609d39-bc75-4427-aa6a-7aa583666f08%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
