Re: [VOTE] release apr-1.6.2-rc3 as APR 1.6.2
Many thanks Eric. On 31/01/2023 23:35, Eric Covener wrote: Vote passes with three binding +1 (ylavic, rpluem, covener), i will [slowly] proceed on APR and APU. -- Regards, Noel Butler This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged information, therefore at all times remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate this message without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message.
Re: [VOTE] release apr-1.6.2-rc3 as APR 1.6.2
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:23 AM Eric Covener wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 8:42 AM Eric Covener wrote: > > > > 1.6.2-rc3 is here: > > > > https://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ > > > > For the release of apr-util-1.6.2 > > [ ] +1 looks great > > [ ] -1 something is broken > > > > +1 AIX/xlc/ppc64 no regression. > > Given the Friday re-roll, I will hold the vote open an extra 24h (3 > binding +1 as of now) to give time for more feedback. Vote passes with three binding +1 (ylavic, rpluem, covener), i will [slowly] proceed on APR and APU. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] release apr-1.6.2-rc3 as APR 1.6.2
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 8:42 AM Eric Covener wrote: > > 1.6.2-rc3 is here: > > https://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ > > For the release of apr-util-1.6.2 > [ ] +1 looks great > [ ] -1 something is broken > +1 AIX/xlc/ppc64 no regression. Given the Friday re-roll, I will hold the vote open an extra 24h (3 binding +1 as of now) to give time for more feedback.
Re: [VOTE] release apr-1.6.2-rc3 as APR 1.6.2
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 2:42 PM Eric Covener wrote: > > 1.6.2-rc3 is here: > > https://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ > > For the release of apr-util-1.6.2 [X] +1 looks great Debian 11 & 12. Did not test the new mariadb bits specifically. Thanks Eric. Regards; Yann.
Re: [VOTE] release apr-1.6.2-rc3 as APR 1.6.2
https://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ For the release of apr-util-1.6.2 [x] +1 looks great [ ] -1 something is broken +1
Re: [VOTE] release apr-1.6.2-rc3 as APR 1.6.2
On 27/01/2023 23:42, Eric Covener wrote: 1.6.2-rc3 is here: https://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ For the release of apr-util-1.6.2 [ X ] +1 looks great [ ] -1 something is broken non binding +1 on rc3 build process Rebuilt httpd with included apr option, no errors, apru build succeeds and runs fine (mariadb 10.5.18) Thanks. -- Regards, Noel Butler This Email, including attachments, may contain legally privileged information, therefore at all times remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate this message without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message.
Re: [VOTE] release apr-1.6.2-rc3 as APR 1.6.2
On 1/27/23 4:53 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:12 AM Ruediger Pluem wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/27/23 2:42 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >>> 1.6.2-rc3 is here: >>> >>> https://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ >>> >>> For the release of apr-util-1.6.2 >>> [ ] +1 looks great >>> [ ] -1 something is broken >>> >>> I'd like to call a vote in parallel to the discussion around the >>> suitability for 1.6.x. >>> >>> If there is not a passing vote (or is no versioning consensus) in ~72H >>> I will proceed with rc2 and abandon rc3. Otherwise I will release rc3. >>> >>> I will assume +1'es are orthogonal to the versioning issue and will >>> just gauge the consensus in the two threads. >>> >> >> +1 > > Just to be sure, this is +1 for rc3 or just the plan? > +1 for rc3 Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] release apr-1.6.2-rc3 as APR 1.6.2
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:12 AM Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > > On 1/27/23 2:42 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > > 1.6.2-rc3 is here: > > > > https://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ > > > > For the release of apr-util-1.6.2 > > [ ] +1 looks great > > [ ] -1 something is broken > > > > I'd like to call a vote in parallel to the discussion around the > > suitability for 1.6.x. > > > > If there is not a passing vote (or is no versioning consensus) in ~72H > > I will proceed with rc2 and abandon rc3. Otherwise I will release rc3. > > > > I will assume +1'es are orthogonal to the versioning issue and will > > just gauge the consensus in the two threads. > > > > +1 Just to be sure, this is +1 for rc3 or just the plan?
Re: [VOTE] release apr-1.6.2-rc3 as APR 1.6.2
On 1/27/23 2:42 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > 1.6.2-rc3 is here: > > https://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ > > For the release of apr-util-1.6.2 > [ ] +1 looks great > [ ] -1 something is broken > > I'd like to call a vote in parallel to the discussion around the > suitability for 1.6.x. > > If there is not a passing vote (or is no versioning consensus) in ~72H > I will proceed with rc2 and abandon rc3. Otherwise I will release rc3. > > I will assume +1'es are orthogonal to the versioning issue and will > just gauge the consensus in the two threads. > +1 Regards Rüdiger
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
On Jun 9, 2017 08:09, "William A Rowe Jr"wrote: With good fortune, all architecture-specific issues are fixed, and we are ready to bless a 1.6 initial release. Usual http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ path contains the candidate. +/- votes please [ ] Release apr 1.6.2 +1
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:09 PM, William A Rowe Jrwrote: > With good fortune, all architecture-specific issues are fixed, > and we are ready to bless a 1.6 initial release. Usual > http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ path contains the candidate. > > +/- votes please [+1] Release apr 1.6.2 Tested on Debian(s) stable, old-stable, testing/unstable. All tests passed. PGP/SHA1/MD5 valid. Thanks Bill for RMing.
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
No issues seen Build (the MS dsw/dsp way) en Tested with the APR-Util 1.6.0 release candidate and httpd-2.4.26-dev --- Original message --- Subject: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2 From: William A Rowe JrTo: APR Developer List Date: Friday, 09/06/2017 15:08 With good fortune, all architecture-specific issues are fixed, and we are ready to bless a 1.6 initial release. Usual http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ path contains the candidate. +/- votes please [ ] Release apr 1.6.2
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
On 09.06.2017 15:09, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > With good fortune, all architecture-specific issues are fixed, > and we are ready to bless a 1.6 initial release. Usual > http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ path contains the candidate. > > +/- votes please > [ ] Release apr 1.6.2 +1 OS X 10.11.6 El Capitan Tested with the APR-Util 1.6.0 release candidate and Subversion trunk. With one warning: ../apr-1.6.2/atomic/unix/builtins.c:71:53: warning: passing 'const void *' to parameter of type 'volatile void *' discards qualifiers [-Wincompatible-pointer-types-discards-qualifiers] return (void*) __sync_val_compare_and_swap(mem, cmp, with); ^~~ -- Brane
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
On 6/9/2017 6:09 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: With good fortune, all architecture-specific issues are fixed, and we are ready to bless a 1.6 initial release. Usual http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ path contains the candidate. +/- votes please [ ] Release apr 1.6.2 [+1] Release apr 1.6.2
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:09:00 -0500): > [+1] Release apr 1.6.2 FWIW: +1 Windows VC14 (CMake) -- Jan
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
+1 AIX/xlc/ppc64 longstanding failure in apr_sockaddr_is_wildcard() only On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jim Jagielskiwrote: > +1 >> On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:09 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> With good fortune, all architecture-specific issues are fixed, >> and we are ready to bless a 1.6 initial release. Usual >> http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ path contains the candidate. >> >> +/- votes please >> [ ] Release apr 1.6.2 > -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
+1 > On Jun 9, 2017, at 9:09 AM, William A Rowe Jrwrote: > > With good fortune, all architecture-specific issues are fixed, > and we are ready to bless a 1.6 initial release. Usual > http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ path contains the candidate. > > +/- votes please > [ ] Release apr 1.6.2
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
On 09/06/2017 23:09, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > With good fortune, all architecture-specific issues are fixed, > and we are ready to bless a 1.6 initial release. Usual > http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ path contains the candidate. > > +/- votes please > [ ] Release apr 1.6.2 +1 Slackware -- Kind Regards, Noel Butler This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments, immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary formatted documents Links: -- [1] http://www.adobe.com/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [VOTE] Release APR 1.6.2
On Jun 9, 2017 5:50 PM, "Nick Kew"wrote: On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:09:00 -0500 William A Rowe Jr wrote: > With good fortune, all architecture-specific issues are fixed, > and we are ready to bless a 1.6 initial release. Usual > http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ path contains the candidate. Thanks! > +/- votes please > [ ] Release apr 1.6.2 +1 on my platforms. Checking a diff, I am confused by the Netware change in r1797413. Is that an exact reversion to 1.5.2? Yes, it is identical nonsense, just avoiding any regression here. Do we have someone who can test-drive Netware? I hope so. From my discussion with Yann, we are off the opinion that this could be fixed in a future 1.6.3 since the prior declarations were unusable bugs, and it should cause no pain.