Any known problem to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Any known problem to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347?

baz themail
Hi,

I am planning to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347. Is there any problems with that? What is the safest way to upgrade with those specific versions?

Thank you.

A.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Any known problem to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347?

Mike Rooney-5
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:24 PM, baz themail <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I am planning to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347. Is there any problems with that? What is the safest way to upgrade with those specific versions?


The easiest way to upgrade is to upgrade via the link in Manage Hudson in the web UI, or by downloading the lastest hudson.war and replacing your old one, and restarting Hudson. Pretty simple if you are running from a .war!

The only existing regression I'm aware of is http://issues.hudson-ci.org/browse/HUDSON-5391, which will likely be problematic if you have parameterized builds but otherwise won't affect you. Just make sure to upgrade the plug-ins you use too via the plug-in manager, otherwise they could potentially use deprecated APIs that no longer exist.

Generally regressions are fixed rather quickly; the only rule I have is to wait to upgrade until Wednesdays or so (after being burned by more than one Friday/weekend upgrade regression), when the latest release has had a few days for people to discover bugs. If I don't notice any popular issues on IRC or the mailing lists, I'll upgrade. So if I were in your position I'd upgrade to 1.346 unless any of the issues fixed in 1.347 seem particularly important, and if so, wait a few days.

Hopefully I've given good advice but if not, someone please correct me :)

--
Michael Rooney
[hidden email]
Sent from San Mateo, CA, United States
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Any known problem to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347?

Fabrizio Giudici
In reply to this post by baz themail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/23/10 08:24 , baz themail wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am planning to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347. Is there any problems
> with that? What is the safest way to upgrade with those specific
> versions?
>
> Thank you.
>
> A.
I've recently upgraded from 337 to 347, and (almost?) all Mercurial
polling broke - see my previous email.

- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[hidden email]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuDl/4ACgkQeDweFqgUGxcblACbBOGCR3UdkenvjJLA+Of7QrKP
U1EAnAlAK5vt3B42VX0qQ6fSoUG5buDd
=PBU0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Any known problem to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347?

baz themail
Thanks for the info. Just curious, if i want to roll back to 1.316, can i just swap out the hudson.war back to v 1.316?ß

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Fabrizio Giudici <[hidden email]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/23/10 08:24 , baz themail wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am planning to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347. Is there any problems
> with that? What is the safest way to upgrade with those specific
> versions?
>
> Thank you.
>
> A.
I've recently upgraded from 337 to 347, and (almost?) all Mercurial
polling broke - see my previous email.

- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[hidden email]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuDl/4ACgkQeDweFqgUGxcblACbBOGCR3UdkenvjJLA+Of7QrKP
U1EAnAlAK5vt3B42VX0qQ6fSoUG5buDd
=PBU0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Any known problem to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347?

Fabrizio Giudici
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/23/10 10:56 , baz themail wrote:
> Thanks for the info. Just curious, if i want to roll back to
> 1.316, can i just swap out the hudson.war back to v 1.316?ß

No: you need also to make a backup copy of the config.xml files, and
then you should consider plugins - there are chances that those
working with 316 will need to be updated for 347; so you should also
backup them.

Personally, I've seen that in the latest year every upgrade of Hudson
brings at least a serious problem to my jobs, but it's later solved
with not much effort (or a patch is available soon). For this reason,
I think I'll set up my stuff so I have two Hudson instances, and I can
first try a new version without the need of making a backup / rollback
(too bad that I don't have a Solaris server, otherwise ZFS would do
the job perfectly).



- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[hidden email]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuDzMcACgkQeDweFqgUGxdn7ACfWm8M/1Sg9Dr2/nppuxiTINCD
bbcAniXsHJhePS9XhR5NSJ/+t0yXccnk
=N2HZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Any known problem to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347?

Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Administrator
2010/2/23 Fabrizio Giudici <[hidden email]>:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2/23/10 10:56 , baz themail wrote:
>> Thanks for the info. Just curious, if i want to roll back to
>> 1.316, can i just swap out the hudson.war back to v 1.316?ß
>
> No: you need also to make a backup copy of the config.xml files, and
> then you should consider plugins - there are chances that those
> working with 316 will need to be updated for 347; so you should also
> backup them.

Hmm, I consider the answer to the original question "Yes" --- Hudson
doesn't touch any configuration file until it's manually modified. So
one can go back to the previous version by "just swapping hudson.war
back to 1.316"
For plugins, when you update to a new plugin, Hudson leaves *.bak
files to help you roll back.

Obviously, it doesn't hurt to do a back up, so if you are concerned
and don't mind taking a back up, you should do so.

> Personally, I've seen that in the latest year every upgrade of Hudson
> brings at least a serious problem to my jobs, but it's later solved
> with not much effort (or a patch is available soon). For this reason,
> I think I'll set up my stuff so I have two Hudson instances, and I can
> first try a new version without the need of making a backup / rollback
> (too bad that I don't have a Solaris server, otherwise ZFS would do
> the job perfectly).

For this, I apologize.

This reminds me that I'm supposed to test all the latest released
plugins with the new Hudson bit before a release. I need to work on
that.

--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Any known problem to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347?

Fabrizio Giudici
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/23/10 17:14 , Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:

> 2010/2/23 Fabrizio Giudici <[hidden email]>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 2/23/10 10:56 , baz themail wrote:
>>> Thanks for the info. Just curious, if i want to roll back to
>>> 1.316, can i just swap out the hudson.war back to v 1.316?ß
>>
>> No: you need also to make a backup copy of the config.xml files,
>> and then you should consider plugins - there are chances that
>> those working with 316 will need to be updated for 347; so you
>> should also backup them.
>
> Hmm, I consider the answer to the original question "Yes" ---
> Hudson doesn't touch any configuration file until it's manually
> modified.
Yes, but it could happen that you don't notice a problem immediately,
then you save a configuration (for any reason) and later discover your
problem...

>> Personally, I've seen that in the latest year every upgrade of
>> Hudson brings at least a serious problem to my jobs, but it's
>> later solved with not much effort (or a patch is available soon).
>> For this reason, I think I'll set up my stuff so I have two
>> Hudson instances, and I can first try a new version without the
>> need of making a backup / rollback (too bad that I don't have a
>> Solaris server, otherwise ZFS would do the job perfectly).
>
> For this, I apologize.
>
> This reminds me that I'm supposed to test all the latest released
> plugins with the new Hudson bit before a release. I need to work
> on that.
First, you _don't_ need to apologize. Rationally speaking, the idea of
trying a new version of a software in a pre-production environment
makes sense. With respect to Hudson, my testing environment is the
production environment (that is the production of tests). The more
tests you make integrating plugins the better, but I don't think it
will be ever possible to cover all the possible usages of us
customers, also keeping in mind that Hudson works in an environment
that is often "tweaked".

I think it would be more productive if the developers worked on a
specific "rollback" option (maybe an extension of the backup plugin -
but given its role it would probably better to have it in the core)
that archives all the configuration files, all the plugins, all the
hudson jars and required libraries, whatever could be modified by an
upgrade, associates a label to it (a "profile"?), and make me able to
eventually roll back to it later without effort.


- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
[hidden email]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuECmYACgkQeDweFqgUGxfyiACgkiY/KNp29bwE/NFVBAdvLVyT
Ue0AnA0wvYweIrofifoi6QJqvLOgKhdP
=9gD9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Any known problem to upgrade from 1.316 to 1.347?

baz themail
Kohsuke, Fabrizio, and others, thank you very much for the inputs...
> Hmm, I consider the answer to the original question "Yes" ---
> Hudson doesn't touch any configuration file until it's manually
> modified.
>Yes, but it could happen that you don't notice a problem immediately,
>then you save a configuration (for any reason) and later discover your
>problem...

This is the exact reason why I post. Many people here perform straight
automatic upgrade. I do not want to upgrade production system without
carefully prepared.

I am going to backup the top four levels of %HUDSON_HOME%. This will
backup everything except the individual jobs and outputs. These
directories will be copied to test Hudson server for tests. It will
behave like a mirror. Once done. Upgrade hudson.war in the production
server. Sounds good?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]