Backporting for 2.479.3 LTS

[krisstern]

Latest core version: jenkins-2.489

Fixed
-----

JENKINS-73908           Minor                   2.486
        Users with SystemRead permission can see "Or Upgrade Automatically" button in core version monitor
        https://issues.jenkins.io/browse/JENKINS-73908

JENKINS-73907           Minor                   2.488
        Double-escaped tooltips in "Help for feature" (regression in 2.380)
        regression
        https://issues.jenkins.io/browse/JENKINS-73907

JENKINS-73487           Minor                   2.488
        No such property: size for class: hudson.model.UpdateSite$Warning when using Java past version 11
        https://issues.jenkins.io/browse/JENKINS-73487

Submitter checklist

Preview Give feedback

1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Preview Give feedback

1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

[basil]

Is there any reason the fix for JENKINS-73942 (Jetty 12.0.16 and Winstone 8.4) was not backported to 2.479.3? #9951 (comment) expressed a desire to ensure that users of weekly releases did not report any regressions, but it has been several weeks since that change has shipped in weekly without any reported regressions, so that does not seem to be a concern.

[MarkEWaite]

Is there any reason the fix for JENKINS-73942 (Jetty 12.0.16 and Winstone 8.4) was not backported to 2.479.3?

No reason that I'm aware of. I didn't look at the LTS candidate list when I proposed the second backport in:

• Backporting for 2.479.3 LTS - part 2 #10103

Are you willing to submit the backporting pull request?

[basil]

Are you willing to submit the backporting pull request?

⇒ #10121