If the issue is "real" and a patch is forthcoming, I agree that we mark 2.4.28 as DOA and proceed w/ 2.4.29 next week. I am comfortable keeping the VOTE open longer that the normal/required 72hours to be sure one way or another.
Personally, I don't think the age or heritage of the build-logic is the issue, but rather a lack of people *really* testing 2.4.x until a release is tagged. It's for that reason that I tend to pre-announce a T&R well in advance of actually DOING the T&R so that people can test HEAD in hopes that the tag will already have had some good testing beforehand. > On Sep 27, 2017, at 11:21 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > The assert() has me concerned, and Steffen's report is problematic. He has a > vote but hasn't cast it. At this moment I'm -0 and would spin a 2.4.29 next > week to address these issues, unless you decide to respin before this > release, yourself. > > Nothing I've changed today altered the httpd tarball significantly. Studying > Steffen's report next, along with some apparently missing glue for brotli. > > My solution is going to be radical, shove every last d*mned modules/foo into > the /I path includes list so this can't happen again during 2.4, and > hopefully not until 20 year old build logic is discarded. One less thing to > worry about or pre-review when RM's loudly announce an upcoming tag. > > > > > On Sep 25, 2017 07:13, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd > version 2.4.28 can be found at the usual place: > > http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ > > I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.28 GA. > > [ ] +1: Good to go > [ ] +0: meh > [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why. > > Vote will last the normal 72 hrs. > > NOTE: The *-deps are only there for convenience. > > Thx!
