RE: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30

[DRuggeri]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 6:10 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30
> 
> Another thing that helps is providing some heads-up
> that a T will actually be happening... Yeah, you
> had noted the you were going to T on Monday
> (in the "T of 2.4.30 Proposal" thread) but sending
> out a quick "I plan on doing this in X hours" notice
> allows for some possible last-minute items to pop
> up.
> 
> Just a suggestion.

Sure, I can do that.


> 
> > On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:44 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest using the scripts from
> >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/site/trunk/tools
> >
> > for as much of the work as possible since they have been used
> > and vetted for several years.

Indeed, I did for everything except the tagging (which is why I created a 
script to do it). I also created one to push to dev/release dist repos for 
convenience. As mentioned, the goal is to automate the process as much as 
possible so with the gap in existing tooling, I went ahead and filled it. I 
guess I just misinterpreted the instructions and didn’t think to review SVN 
history of the previous releases as Joe mentioned.

Aside from this omission, are we otherwise in good shape?


> >
> >> On Feb 19, 2018, at 7:28 PM, drugg...@primary.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Ah, I see. I created a script that does the tagging based on the directions
> here.
> >> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html
> >>
> >> It was unclear in those instructions that one should commit the change to
> AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN.
> >>
> >> Instead I did the following:
> >> ...
> >> #Set AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN to 0 in include/ap_release.h.
> >> perl -pi -e 's/(#define\s+AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN\s+)\d/${1}0/g'
> include/ap_release.h
> >>
> >> #Create an official X.Y.Z tag based on the candidate tree.
> >> svn copy "$src_dir" "$tags_dir/$version"
> >>
> >> #Revert the change to include/ap_release.h setting
> AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN back to 1, and bump
> AP_SERVER_PATCHLEVEL_NUMBER
> >> perl -pi -e '
> >>  s/(#define\s+AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN\s+)\d/${1}1/g;
> >>
> >>  if(/(#define\s+AP_SERVER_PATCHLEVEL_NUMBER\s+)(\d+)$/){
> >>$new = $2 + 1;
> >>$_ = "${1}${new}\n";
> >>  }
> >>  ' include/ap_release.h
> >> ...
> >>
> >> This begets a tarball that has the Boolean set to 0, but no
> commit/revert/bump (instead just an apparent bump):
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/tags/2.4.30/include/ap_release.
> h?view=markup#l47
> >>
> >> It makes sense that the tag comes from a specific commit where the
> variable was flipped...  Should I adjust the script and retry?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Ruggeri
> >>
> >> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 9:46 AM
> >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30
> >>
> >> Hmmm... I'm not seeing the patch where
> AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN
> >> in ap_release.h is set to 0
> >>
> >> How does your release process work? What we've always
> >> done is make the req changes to the branch and then copy
> >> from that branch to the tag. So the tag itself must refer to
> >> a specific SVN number on the http-2.4 branch but I'm
> >> not seeing where that is done.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:54 AM, mailto:drugg...@primary.net wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 as 2.4.30:
> >>
> >> [ ] +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.
> >> --
> >> Daniel Ruggeri
> >>
> >>

-- 
Daniel Ruggeri

RE: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30

[DRuggeri]

Ah, I see. I created a script that does the tagging based on the directions 
here.
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html

It was unclear in those instructions that one should commit the change to 
AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN.

Instead I did the following:
...
#Set AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN to 0 in include/ap_release.h.
perl -pi -e 's/(#define\s+AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN\s+)\d/${1}0/g' 
include/ap_release.h

#Create an official X.Y.Z tag based on the candidate tree.
svn copy "$src_dir" "$tags_dir/$version"

#Revert the change to include/ap_release.h setting 
AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN back to 1, and bump AP_SERVER_PATCHLEVEL_NUMBER
perl -pi -e '
  s/(#define\s+AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN\s+)\d/${1}1/g;

  if(/(#define\s+AP_SERVER_PATCHLEVEL_NUMBER\s+)(\d+)$/){
$new = $2 + 1;
$_ = "${1}${new}\n";
  }
  ' include/ap_release.h
...

This begets a tarball that has the Boolean set to 0, but no commit/revert/bump 
(instead just an apparent bump):
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/tags/2.4.30/include/ap_release.h?view=markup#l47

It makes sense that the tag comes from a specific commit where the variable was 
flipped...  Should I adjust the script and retry?

-- 
Daniel Ruggeri

From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 9:46 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30

Hmmm... I'm not seeing the patch where AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN
in ap_release.h is set to 0

How does your release process work? What we've always
done is make the req changes to the branch and then copy
from that branch to the tag. So the tag itself must refer to
a specific SVN number on the http-2.4 branch but I'm
not seeing where that is done.


On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:54 AM, mailto:drugg...@primary.net wrote:

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 as 2.4.30:
 
[ ] +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.
-- 
Daniel Ruggeri

[VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.30

[DRuggeri]

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 as 2.4.30:

 

[ ] +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.

-- 

Daniel Ruggeri

 

Re: mod_proxy_hcheck backport

[druggeri]

On 2016-05-12 16:33, Jim Jagielski wrote:

Looking, begging, pleading for tests and votes :)


Yup! You got mine.

Side question that popped into my mind as I was reviewing the code... 
Would it make sense to have a "transitional" status for the time between 
0 failures and when hcfails threshold is breached? I wonder because 
there may be a reason to have multiple failures configured before 
marking the backend out of service (plus a potentially long hcinterval 
for whatever reason) and it'd be nice if an admin can be informed of a 
"yellow" condition if they are futzing around elsewhere in the balancer 
manager or are monitoring its output otherwise.


--
Daniel Ruggeri