RE: stable 2.0 trees
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 00:49, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: I'd prefer to come up with strict versioning rules for httpd before proceeding further. I'm slightly concerned that we're starting to move away from the 'versions are cheap' ideology. Currently, we place no meaning on the version numbers (only the quality of the tarball). I think we ought to step back and place a meaning on the versions first. -- justin Just speaking as an end user here, the idea that versions are cheap just seems wrong to me. Why? I can't explain it. :) BUT I'm MUCH more comfortable with knowing that 1.3.27 is a RELEASED version of apache vs 2.0.44 was not released and so we went to 2.0.45. I think that if we followed either the perl/linux kernel module of release numbers and pre/rc scheme as others have said, that makes sense. What does a version number mean? Well, in the even numbered release that the server is STABLE and it fixes bug(s)/adds MINOR features. Also that I as a admin can upgrade apache to apply the latest fix WITHOUT HAVING to recompile my other modules. Ala the 1.3 tree. -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: A suggested ROADMAP for working 2.1/2.2 forward?
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: APACHE 2.x ROADMAP == Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/01 19:13:06 $] [...rest of the roadmap deleted...] If I may make 3 suggestions. 1) If we want to match the kernel/perl versioning system, then make 2.2 the stable version and make 2.3 the devel version and just SKIP 2.1. :) 2) THROW CVS out and switch over to using Subversion as the SCM for Apache. Tags/branches are EASY to do! :) Besides, it USES apache 2.0 for the remote repository access. What better way to promote both programs? :) 3) Possibly add in the roadmap something about using -pr and -rc versions for testing before release. Especially on the stable branches. -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: A suggested ROADMAP for working 2.1/2.2 forward?
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 11:34 AM 10/17/2002, Jeff Stuart wrote: On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: APACHE 2.x ROADMAP == Last modified at [$Date: 2002/10/01 19:13:06 $] [...rest of the roadmap deleted...] If I may make 3 suggestions. 1) If we want to match the kernel/perl versioning system, then make 2.2 the stable version and make 2.3 the devel version and just SKIP 2.1. :) Nope... for this reason. 2.0 was never 'stable' by this new definition. So we can consider that 2.0 was a development branch for it's entire life. Not that it was bad code, but we changed things many times. Now 2.1 we state that the odds never change. Actually matches 1.3 well (it no longer changes and hasn't since 1.3.14. Talk about a great track record :-) This is not linux/perl, in that we don't have the same even/odds. But it's pretty nice that when we start 3.0, it too will be development, and when we are ready, we fall nicely into the 3.1/3.2 pattern all over again. 2) THROW CVS out and switch over to using Subversion as the SCM for Apache. Tags/branches are EASY to do! :) Besides, it USES apache 2.0 for the remote repository access. What better way to promote both programs? :) That's a seperate topic :-) But a good point. Are we anywhere near ready? If we debate this, please pull out this point as subject: SVN already? 3) Possibly add in the roadmap something about using -pr and -rc versions for testing before release. Especially on the stable branches. Absolutely. I sort of called that out by suggesting the _worktag (for use by everyone,) then the_RC# (only to be tweaked by the RM.) I could say more, but do you want to offer an edit instead? Bill Well... Umm... It's not needed. LOL... #1 wasn't all that important to me. It was if we want to follow... type thing. :) #2 of course is as you point out a seperate discussion. #3 Hmm... I'm not sure if that even belongs in the roadmap now that I think about it. That's more just the guidelines for the RM. More I think about it... that's a guideline/suggestion for the RM. -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Vote] 2.1 fork near ready?
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 12:42, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Here's my current proposal... For what it's worth as an end user, my vote is +1. :) -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: stable 2.0 trees
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 02:23, Jeff Stuart wrote: Not to make a me too post BUT.. me too. I've been using apache 2. on non critical projects or where I MUST use apache 2. (IE Subversion repository). So far, it's stable BUT (and I stress this HIGHLY) it's not been pounded on AT all. IE at most, 100 hits in a day by 3 or 4 people AT most! :) This is what happens when I hit send to quick! I meant to say It's not been pounded on AT all by me.. IE While I THINK it's OK.. I don't have that warm fuzzy feeling about Apache 2. (Yet. :)) -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: stable 2.0 trees
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 10:46, Thom May wrote: * Jim Jagielski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : Bill Stoddard wrote: At the risk of racing too far ahead in this discussion, here is my suggestion... 2.0.43 becomes 2.1 and the MMN major does not change for subsequent 2.1 series releases (except for a compelling reason, eg a security fix -requires- a bump). Why 2.1? No technical reason; purely a PR tactic to telegraph to the user community we are putting a lot of focus on maintaining binary backward compatability and to get rid of the *.0.* in the version number (yea, to appease the folks who are allergic to 0's in version numbers). I like. Me too. Not to make a me too post BUT.. me too. I've been using apache 2. on non critical projects or where I MUST use apache 2. (IE Subversion repository). So far, it's stable BUT (and I stress this HIGHLY) it's not been pounded on AT all. IE at most, 100 hits in a day by 3 or 4 people AT most! :) -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?
Speaking as an end user, my problem is this:
Module development. PHP STILL does not officially support Apache 2. It
is still marked as experimental. Mod_perl still doesn't support Apache
2.
For me, these are the 2 third party modules I use. Yes, the onus DOES
rest on the developers of these modules to port over. However, if the
API keeps changing underneath their feet... I can understand WHY it's
taking them as long as it has to officially support Apache 2.0.
And now you want to create an Apache 2.1! Oy! Give the third party
developers a LITTLE bit of time to catch up. :)
On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 20:17, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
How's this for simple? Create httpd-2.1 and back out Justin's changes
from httpd-2.0 so we don't break our users. If someone wants to change
more APIs in httpd-2.1, let them do so. When it's ready, we release it and
start supporting it just as httpd-2.0. We effectively drop httpd-2.0 at the
release of httpd-2.1 except for security patches, and anything anybody
really wants to commit. But the focus is on the last GA code, just as
today. {Sure little bugs get fixed occasionally in apache-1.3. Nothing's
wrong with that, or with continuing that tradition in httpd-2.0.}
What's defined as 'ready' for httpd-2.1? That it works, that it is a GA
quality release. If we can fix other foobars we made while designing 2.0,
that would be terrific. Bugs fixed in the httpd-2.0 tree can be committed
to the httpd-2.1 tree. But let's set our sights on an early release, some
time this winter if not by year end.
Perhaps what scares some developers is the HUGE time between the
idea of 2.0 and it's eventual GA release. There is no reason we should
get bogged down agian. Sure, there is a quick alpha-beta-GA cycle,
but we have that down to a science.
Bill
--
Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Problems checking out new module from newly setup SVN server
Well, I found my problem... APPARENTLY, SVN doesn't like the worker MPM... This is with Apache 2.0.41. I'm ccing httpd-dev in case it's an apache problem and not a svn problem. Note, even when I did an OPTIONS on /svn, it would freeze for a good 2 minutes or so. The backtrace I got when I ran httpd -X with GDB: #0 0x402a2bb5 in __sigsuspend (set=0xb7e0) at ../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/sigsuspend.c:45 #1 0x402686b8 in sigwait (set=0xb8b0, sig=0xb8ac) at signals.c:221 #2 0x401ea414 in apr_signal_thread (signal_handler=0x80aa164 check_signal) at signals.c:414 #3 0x080aa887 in child_main (child_num_arg=0) at worker.c:1277 #4 0x080aa986 in make_child (s=0x810e490, slot=0) at worker.c:1356 #5 0x080aaa6b in startup_children (number_to_start=2) at worker.c:1410 #6 0x080ab109 in ap_mpm_run (_pconf=0x80f6870, plog=0x8136970, s=0x810e490) at worker.c:1721 #7 0x080b0953 in main (argc=2, argv=0xbab4) at main.c:643 #8 0x40290657 in __libc_start_main (main=0x80b01e0 main, argc=2, ubp_av=0xbab4, init=0x8066284 _init, fini=0x80c63f0 _fini, rtld_fini=0x4000dcd4 _dl_fini, stack_end=0xbaac) at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c:129 On Wednesday 18 September 2002 05:26 pm, Jeff Stuart wrote: Ok, I installed SVN just like the docs say. Modified httpd.conf to create the /svn URL. I also created the repository AND imported a module. svn using the file URLs works perfectly. I've also restarted the server. When I try to check out the module using the HTTP URL, it fails. Here's what I get: (rjbtel@rjb2)()(05:15PM:09/18/02) (1252:252)$ svn co http://localhost/svn/banneroverdrive bo svn: RA layer request failed svn: PROPFIND of /: 405 Method Not Allowed and in the access log, I get this: 127.0.0.1 - - [18/Sep/2002:17:19:57 -0400] PROPFIND / HTTP/1.1 405 728 - neon/0.23.3 SVN/0.14. 2 (dev build) NOTHING at all in the error log... ANY ideas? -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tagged the tree
What's the current status? Have we tagged for 2.0.41 yet or no? Will this be happening today/tonight/early tomorrow morning? (IE, I'm installing subversion and I'd PREFER to grab 2.0.41 and not head.) On Saturday 07 September 2002 11:12 am, Sander Striker wrote: Hi, I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after I get some positive feedback on this tag. Greg, could you bump daedalus to this tag next week to see how it holds? Sander -- Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: whither are we going?
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 12:29, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 12:12:27PM -0500, Jeff Stuart wrote: face to everyone who uses/depends on Apache. Of all the programs I use/depends (Apache, PHP, Perl, Mysql, mod_perl, Gnome) only here have I seen that attitude that the USERS of a program do not matter. On your side as a user, that means you should test our releases or offer constructive feedback about what we're doing *technically*. As Ian asked, have you tested Apache 2.0? A simple, Hey, this thing is great! or Hey, this thing sucks! is a contribution in and of itself. I think you missed Roy's point entirely. -- justin If I misunderstood Roy's comments, then I apologize. However, I can't test Apache 2.0 since the majority of my work is with mod_perl. Last I looked mod_perl won't work with Apache 2.0. (checking on that as we speak though. :D). QED I'm KINDA stuck here. :)
Re: OT: whither are we going?
. There are things that I would LOVE to be able to do that right now, I can't since Apache 2.0 is not out and therefore, things like mod_perl are not ported to it, etc. Final disclaimer: Of course, this is all in my opinion. Jeff Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
