[VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.49-rc1 as httpd-2.4.49
Hi, all; Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate tarball httpd-2.4.49-rc1 as 2.4.49: [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough! [ ] +0: Let's have a talk. [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong. The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are: sha1: 525378680b3474ff319b83af76565891f8b98331 *httpd-2.4.49-rc1.tar.gz sha256: 345d3b9b218b1974d1cebd5ae72f6a661d83b52d839310222ff9ec94abb62205 *httpd-2.4.49-rc1.tar.gz sha512: 8efa12f239e1075c0eb8634dde5fa12e73b766a6a8f17882d6bedab8be3e02a1a15be8288413bb6da5be34e58a6e239342cdcb59ebe2d8d88ea4712028b03e5f *httpd-2.4.49-rc1.tar.gz The SVN candidate source is found at tags/candidate-2.4.49-rc1. PS. Some slight change to previous releases: The tarballs carry a prefix '-rc1' but the directory it unpacks to is 'httpd-2.4.49'. This is to make sure that, when you vote on a tarball and it is accepted, that we can release this very thing you voted on. All other things should be the same as in previous releases.
Re: release roll soon?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:33 PM ste...@eissing.org wrote: > > Found https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64753 > > Switch the configure.in to the one in branches/1.7.x, buildconf again and now > it compiles The checked in patch seems to be https://svn.apache.org/r1871981 > > Seems, a new APR release would be nice for the poor macOS people... On its way, AIUI. Cheers; Yann.
Re: release roll soon?
> Am 10.09.2021 um 16:31 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:18 PM ste...@eissing.org wrote: >> >> APR experts: I build the -deps tar with apr 1.7.0 / apr-util 1.6.1. Those >> are looked up at the site as the latest, just like the old scripts did. >> However, that will not configure on my macOS. The branches/1.7.x which I >> normally use does. >> >> ./include/apr.h:561:2: error: Can not determine the proper size for pid_t >> >> any one can help my poor memory on how to work around that? > > You could test the non-deps tarball and have your usual 1.7.x checkout > in srclib? > The -deps are only provided for convenience, in this case it simply > does not help macOS users. > If you want to email me with the tarball I can smoke test it on linux at > least. Found https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64753 Switch the configure.in to the one in branches/1.7.x, buildconf again and now it compiles Seems, a new APR release would be nice for the poor macOS people... > >> >> I have the insane plan to actually test the tars before putting them out for >> voting... > > That'll teach you.. I learn so much from my mistakes, I just make some more! > > > Cheers; > Yann.
Re: release roll soon?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 4:18 PM ste...@eissing.org wrote: > > APR experts: I build the -deps tar with apr 1.7.0 / apr-util 1.6.1. Those are > looked up at the site as the latest, just like the old scripts did. > However, that will not configure on my macOS. The branches/1.7.x which I > normally use does. > > ./include/apr.h:561:2: error: Can not determine the proper size for pid_t > > any one can help my poor memory on how to work around that? You could test the non-deps tarball and have your usual 1.7.x checkout in srclib? The -deps are only provided for convenience, in this case it simply does not help macOS users. If you want to email me with the tarball I can smoke test it on linux at least. > > I have the insane plan to actually test the tars before putting them out for > voting... That'll teach you.. Cheers; Yann.
Re: release roll soon?
APR experts: I build the -deps tar with apr 1.7.0 / apr-util 1.6.1. Those are looked up at the site as the latest, just like the old scripts did. However, that will not configure on my macOS. The branches/1.7.x which I normally use does. ./include/apr.h:561:2: error: Can not determine the proper size for pid_t any one can help my poor memory on how to work around that? I have the insane plan to actually test the tars before putting them out for voting... - Stefan > Am 10.09.2021 um 12:12 schrieb Ruediger Pluem : > > > > On 9/10/21 12:07 PM, ste...@eissing.org wrote: >> > >> So far, I hear that people think we should make a 2.4.49 based >> on the current 2.4.x. >> >> I will do some IRL errands and things and come back to this >> in the afternoon. If this still stands then, I'll create a >> 2.4.49-rc1 and put that to the vote. >> > > Sounds good. Thanks for all your work on this and especially on the scripting. > > Regards > > Rüdiger
Re: release roll soon?
On 9/10/21 12:07 PM, ste...@eissing.org wrote: > > So far, I hear that people think we should make a 2.4.49 based > on the current 2.4.x. > > I will do some IRL errands and things and come back to this > in the afternoon. If this still stands then, I'll create a > 2.4.49-rc1 and put that to the vote. > Sounds good. Thanks for all your work on this and especially on the scripting. Regards Rüdiger
Re: release roll soon?
> Am 10.09.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Ruediger Pluem : > > > > On 9/10/21 10:50 AM, Joe Orton wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 09:42:10AM +0200, ste...@eissing.org wrote: >>> >>> Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton : On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: > Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it > would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it out. > What you say? I'd say it's better to try to get a successful release out, then try to get new features in the stable branch. (In fact, I'd be quite happy if we had 2.5.x/2.6 released and stopped trying new features in 2.4 :) That revision is not sufficient, I have a hopefully-complete set of OpenSSL 3.0 backports at: https://github.com/apache/httpd/pull/258 >>> >>> Do you want that in 2.4.49? (we can always to a 2.4.50 OpenSSL3 >>> release shortly afterwards, imo) >> >> For me, I'd not want to delay or risk regressions in .49 for this, it's >> only a small niche of users who care about it at the moment. I plan to >> propose the PR for backport after the next release. > > +1 > >> >> (It'd be nice to get 3.0 building in Travis so we can be more confident >> about keeping that working, not sure if anybody is testing trunk against >> it regularly right now?) > > +1 So far, I hear that people think we should make a 2.4.49 based on the current 2.4.x. I will do some IRL errands and things and come back to this in the afternoon. If this still stands then, I'll create a 2.4.49-rc1 and put that to the vote. cheers, Stefan
Re: release roll soon?
On 9/10/21 10:50 AM, Joe Orton wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 09:42:10AM +0200, ste...@eissing.org wrote: >> >> >>> Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton : >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it out. What you say? >>> >>> I'd say it's better to try to get a successful release out, then try to >>> get new features in the stable branch. (In fact, I'd be quite happy if >>> we had 2.5.x/2.6 released and stopped trying new features in 2.4 :) >>> >>> That revision is not sufficient, I have a hopefully-complete set of >>> OpenSSL 3.0 backports at: https://github.com/apache/httpd/pull/258 >> >> Do you want that in 2.4.49? (we can always to a 2.4.50 OpenSSL3 >> release shortly afterwards, imo) > > For me, I'd not want to delay or risk regressions in .49 for this, it's > only a small niche of users who care about it at the moment. I plan to > propose the PR for backport after the next release. +1 > > (It'd be nice to get 3.0 building in Travis so we can be more confident > about keeping that working, not sure if anybody is testing trunk against > it regularly right now?) +1 Regards Rüdiger
Re: release roll soon?
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 09:42:10AM +0200, ste...@eissing.org wrote: > > > > Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton : > > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: > >> Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it > >> would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it out. > >> What you say? > > > > I'd say it's better to try to get a successful release out, then try to > > get new features in the stable branch. (In fact, I'd be quite happy if > > we had 2.5.x/2.6 released and stopped trying new features in 2.4 :) > > > > That revision is not sufficient, I have a hopefully-complete set of > > OpenSSL 3.0 backports at: https://github.com/apache/httpd/pull/258 > > Do you want that in 2.4.49? (we can always to a 2.4.50 OpenSSL3 > release shortly afterwards, imo) For me, I'd not want to delay or risk regressions in .49 for this, it's only a small niche of users who care about it at the moment. I plan to propose the PR for backport after the next release. (It'd be nice to get 3.0 building in Travis so we can be more confident about keeping that working, not sure if anybody is testing trunk against it regularly right now?) Regards, Joe
Re: svn commit: r1893216 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
FYI: this proposed backport works nicely in 2.4.x, however needs revisiting when the "new" graceful-continues-serving feature is ever ported back. - Stefan > Am 10.09.2021 um 10:20 schrieb ic...@apache.org: > > Author: icing > Date: Fri Sep 10 08:20:14 2021 > New Revision: 1893216 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1893216&view=rev > Log: > backport proposal added. [skip ci] > > Modified: >httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS > > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1893216&r1=1893215&r2=1893216&view=diff > == > --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original) > +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Fri Sep 10 08:20:14 2021 > @@ -154,6 +154,13 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: > is not the right fix, then it should be removed from trunk. > Putting it here is a way to revive the discussion > > + *) mod_http2: when a server is restarted gracefully, any idle h2 worker > + threads are shut down immediately. > + trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1893214 > + http://svn.apache.org/r1893215 > + 2.4.x patch: svn merge -c 1893214, 1893215 ^/httpd/httpd/trunk . > + +1: icing, > + > PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE BEING WORKED > [ New entries should be added at the START of the list ] > > >
buildbot failure in on httpd-trunk
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder httpd-trunk while building . Full details are available at: https://ci.apache.org/builders/httpd-trunk/builds/6225 Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build: asf945_ubuntu Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler scheduler named 'httpd-trunk-on-commit' triggered this build Build Source Stamp: [branch httpd/httpd/trunk] 1893214 Blamelist: icing BUILD FAILED: failed Sincerely, -The Buildbot
Re: release roll soon?
Indeed it kind of sounds too early to go with OpenSSL 3 yet to consider for a stable release of apache. (Too fresh out of the oven?) El vie., 10 sept. 2021 9:42, ste...@eissing.org escribió: > > > > Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton : > > > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: > >> Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it > >> would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it > out. > >> What you say? > > > > I'd say it's better to try to get a successful release out, then try to > > get new features in the stable branch. (In fact, I'd be quite happy if > > we had 2.5.x/2.6 released and stopped trying new features in 2.4 :) > > > > That revision is not sufficient, I have a hopefully-complete set of > > OpenSSL 3.0 backports at: https://github.com/apache/httpd/pull/258 > > Do you want that in 2.4.49? (we can always to a 2.4.50 OpenSSL3 release > shortly afterwards, imo) > > - Stefan
Re: release roll soon?
> Am 10.09.2021 um 09:02 schrieb Joe Orton : > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: >> Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it >> would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it out. >> What you say? > > I'd say it's better to try to get a successful release out, then try to > get new features in the stable branch. (In fact, I'd be quite happy if > we had 2.5.x/2.6 released and stopped trying new features in 2.4 :) > > That revision is not sufficient, I have a hopefully-complete set of > OpenSSL 3.0 backports at: https://github.com/apache/httpd/pull/258 Do you want that in 2.4.49? (we can always to a 2.4.50 OpenSSL3 release shortly afterwards, imo) - Stefan
Re: release roll soon?
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:23:13PM -0700, Gregg Smith wrote: > Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it > would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it out. > What you say? I'd say it's better to try to get a successful release out, then try to get new features in the stable branch. (In fact, I'd be quite happy if we had 2.5.x/2.6 released and stopped trying new features in 2.4 :) That revision is not sufficient, I have a hopefully-complete set of OpenSSL 3.0 backports at: https://github.com/apache/httpd/pull/258 Regards, Joe
Re: release roll soon?
On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 22:23, Gregg Smith wrote: > > Since OpenSSL 3.0.0 GA came out yesterday (Californuts time) I think it > would be nice to have r1891138 backported for those wishing to try it > out. What you say? +1 for the backport
