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

Remove key rotation banner from weekly release page #402

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 31, 2023

Conversation

NotMyFault
Copy link
Member

The warning has been removed from the carousel at jenkins.io some time ago. I propose to remove it from this repository too.
The current LTS line, 2.401, will continue showing the warning, given it's the first new LTS line with the updated key.

@NotMyFault NotMyFault requested a review from a team as a code owner May 31, 2023 11:30
@NotMyFault NotMyFault changed the title Remove key rotation banner Remove key rotation banner from weekly release page May 31, 2023
Copy link
Member

@timja timja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

won't these get updated on the next LTS point release?

@NotMyFault
Copy link
Member Author

won't these get updated on the next LTS point release?

If someone chooses to merge master into stable-2.401, yes. But given this is non-backportable, this shouldn't happen.

@timja timja merged commit 9913038 into jenkinsci:master May 31, 2023
@NotMyFault NotMyFault deleted the remove-banner branch May 31, 2023 14:10
@basil
Copy link
Member

basil commented May 31, 2023

Our current (informal) process followed in e.g. #202 has historically involved merging the main branch into stable branches. Introducing non-backportable PRs seems error-prone in that it would be all too easy for someone to follow past precedent without realizing that there is a non-backportable PR, especially if there is no way for a first-time release lead to identify such non-backportable PRs.

@NotMyFault
Copy link
Member Author

Our current (informal) process followed in e.g. #202

This was almost 2 1/2 years ago. There's no item on the current LTS checklist that states that master should be merged into a stable-x branch.
Everything goes through backporting from Jira (or GH issues, if applicable). Given I didn't file an issue to backport this PR, no action should be taken for 2.401.2/3(/4).

@basil
Copy link
Member

basil commented May 31, 2023

My point is that the current release scheme, in which stable branches are created from the main branch periodically, does not really support displaying different text for different branches (#386). If the text on stable-2.387 intentionally diverged from the text on the main branch, that intentional divergence would be lost again when stable-2.401 was created from the main branch just a few months later. The only functional purpose for stable branches in this repository at this time is to decrease the risk associated with last-minute code changes, not to display different text for different branches.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants