Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On 3/1/2012 12:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. > > [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module > [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt 72 hours have passed; the firehose module and utility, as committed, are accepted as a module to httpd trunk by a plurality. Thank you to all who voted.
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On 01.03.2012 19:11, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Let's simply reset this whole mess. A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject [ ] Option 3: do not adopt Option 1. Regards, Rainer
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On 3/1/2012 12:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. > > [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module > [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt +1 to adopt as experimental module in trunk. More discussion should follow about the in/out format, though (not in this thread, of course). -- Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On Mar 1, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > I've often thought that modules like, say, mod_ftp, would have a much greater > chance of being successful if they were in trunk rather than it being several > additional steps to obtain. > Yeppers.
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On 3/2/2012 2:14 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > > mod_firehose meets a need. But my +1 has to be conditional on > satisfactory integration of the complementary "firehose" utility > alongside it, presumably in /bin/ . That obligation is met. minfrin acknowledges you could do more than what the firehose extraction utility provides, but what is there exists, and patches are [ALWAYS] welcome.
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On 1 Mar 2012, at 21:27, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 3/1/2012 3:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> Modules do not have to be tested *before* they appear in trunk. That's >> putting the cart before the horse. Part of the development process >> (while in trunk) is doing the testing portion. And hey... if it never >> gets tested, then it gets marked as "experimental" and we all move on. > > In fact there is an modules/experimental/ tree; mod_noloris is currently > one such module. Mod_noloris was a quick&dirty fix to a rather serious problem. It was superseded when Stefan produced a better fix, so there's no expectation now that mod_noloris will ever 'graduate'. I don't think that's a model for most incoming modules! -- Nick Kew
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On 1 Mar 2012, at 18:11, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Let's simply reset this whole mess. +1 to that! I think maybe we have some confusion here because attitudes have evolved over the years, and modules that would once not have been accepted to trunk are now welcomed there. Maybe there would be mileage in revisiting other non-trunk modules? > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. > > [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module > [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt Conditional +1 to Option 1. mod_firehose meets a need. But my +1 has to be conditional on satisfactory integration of the complementary "firehose" utility alongside it, presumably in /bin/ . -- Nick Kew
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
I learned something tonight :) On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 16:30, Rich Bowen wrote: > >... > > I've often thought that modules like, say, mod_ftp, would have a much > > greater chance of being successful if they were in trunk rather than it > > being several additional steps to obtain. > > > > I'm +1 to having this in trunk, but am voting based on the community > > aspects, rather than the technical ones. I figure the technical aspects > will > > work themselves out in trunk ... or they won't, and we'll drop it from a > > release branch. > > Exactly. In the subversion project, we always strive to do development > directly on trunk (rather than branches). Keeping stuff in trunk gives > it many more eyeballs and testing. New features might be buggy on > trunk, but "just don't use it yet" is a good response :-) > > Cheers, > -g >
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 16:30, Rich Bowen wrote: >... > I've often thought that modules like, say, mod_ftp, would have a much > greater chance of being successful if they were in trunk rather than it > being several additional steps to obtain. > > I'm +1 to having this in trunk, but am voting based on the community > aspects, rather than the technical ones. I figure the technical aspects will > work themselves out in trunk ... or they won't, and we'll drop it from a > release branch. Exactly. In the subversion project, we always strive to do development directly on trunk (rather than branches). Keeping stuff in trunk gives it many more eyeballs and testing. New features might be buggy on trunk, but "just don't use it yet" is a good response :-) Cheers, -g
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On Mar 1, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > Modules do not have to be tested *before* they appear in trunk. That's > putting the cart before the horse. Part of the development process > (while in trunk) is doing the testing portion. And hey... if it never > gets tested, then it gets marked as "experimental" and we all move on. This is why I'm not understanding why this particular module (or set of modules) is getting this level of debate and scrutiny. We're talking about adding them to trunk, not in a release. Presumably we wouldn't put them in a release if there was a problem with them. I've often thought that modules like, say, mod_ftp, would have a much greater chance of being successful if they were in trunk rather than it being several additional steps to obtain. I'm +1 to having this in trunk, but am voting based on the community aspects, rather than the technical ones. I figure the technical aspects will work themselves out in trunk ... or they won't, and we'll drop it from a release branch. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen rbo...@apache.org
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On 3/1/2012 3:02 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > Modules do not have to be tested *before* they appear in trunk. That's > putting the cart before the horse. Part of the development process > (while in trunk) is doing the testing portion. And hey... if it never > gets tested, then it gets marked as "experimental" and we all move on. In fact there is an modules/experimental/ tree; mod_noloris is currently one such module. Of course, "if it never gets tested" is a handwave. There's obviously no way for the pmc to assert committers have tested it. The only filter is the acceptance vote. This submitted module was not committed to modules/experimental/, but rather in modules/debugging/ If your desire was to mark this module experimental, you may want to refine your vote to be more explicit. As a diagnostic tool this module is toxic in resource consumption, so in theory, any bugs in this tool are unlikely to cause more pain than using the tool in the first place.
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
Modules do not have to be tested *before* they appear in trunk. That's putting the cart before the horse. Part of the development process (while in trunk) is doing the testing portion. And hey... if it never gets tested, then it gets marked as "experimental" and we all move on. Cheers, -g On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 15:05, Michael Felt wrote: > Seems dangerous to even comment in this flow - but as I am all about > thinking "testing" at the moment - is there any thought about how to test > this. From a packaging point of view I would expect tooling to be able to > test are "included" functions. As a user I would expect anything in trunk > (what I would call main) to be guaranteed. > > I cannot have an opinion about the reasoning for placing something in, or > not in "trunk", and I would expect something to at least have gone through > some sort of testing process - live testing - before committing anything to > a product/service. Before testing was completed I would only dare speaking > of an intention to add. > > Isnt it something along the lines of: "The proof of the pudding is the > eating". > > To me this is just mod_foo, and as far as I know it has never been tested. > (If it is already in trunk maybe I have already compiled it and just do not > know it :p) - and that alone would make me postpone a non-reversible > decision. > > Makes me think of what someone old and wise said to me when I was young: you > (or she) only has to say Yes, or even (yes) once. > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 1, 2012 1:29 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mar 1, 2012, at 1:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> > >> > > Let's simply reset this whole mess. >> > > >> > > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. >> > > >> > > [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module >> > > [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject >> > > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt >> >> +1 for Option 1. > >
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
Seems dangerous to even comment in this flow - but as I am all about thinking "testing" at the moment - is there any thought about how to test this. From a packaging point of view I would expect tooling to be able to test are "included" functions. As a user I would expect anything in trunk (what I would call main) to be guaranteed. I cannot have an opinion about the reasoning for placing something in, or not in "trunk", and I would expect something to at least have gone through some sort of testing process - live testing - before committing anything to a product/service. Before testing was completed I would only dare speaking of an intention to add. Isnt it something along the lines of: "The proof of the pudding is the eating". To me this is just mod_foo, and as far as I know it has never been tested. (If it is already in trunk maybe I have already compiled it and just do not know it :p) - and that alone would make me postpone a non-reversible decision. Makes me think of what someone old and wise said to me when I was young: you (or she) only has to say Yes, or even (yes) once. On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2012 1:29 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2012, at 1:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > > > > Let's simply reset this whole mess. > > > > > > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. > > > > > > [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module > > > [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject > > > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt > > +1 for Option 1. >
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On Mar 1, 2012 1:29 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > > > On Mar 1, 2012, at 1:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > > Let's simply reset this whole mess. > > > > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. > > > > [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module > > [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject > > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt +1 for Option 1.
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On 3/1/2012 12:40 PM, Sander Temme wrote: > > Dimpled chad: I would support option 2 if 1 doesn't have traction. Yup - that's implicit.
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:11 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Let's simply reset this whole mess. > > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. > > [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module > [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt Dimpled chad: I would support option 2 if 1 doesn't have traction. S. -- scte...@apache.orghttp://www.temme.net/sander/ PGP FP: FC5A 6FC6 2E25 2DFD 8007 EE23 9BB8 63B0 F51B B88A View my availability: http://tungle.me/sctemme
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On Mar 1, 2012, at 1:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Let's simply reset this whole mess. > > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. > > [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module > [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt >
Re: [RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
On 3/1/2012 12:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. > > [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module > [X] Option 2: adopt only as subproject > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt
[RE-VOTE] adoption of mod_firehose MODULE
Let's simply reset this whole mess. A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. [ ] Option 1: adopt as trunk module [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject [ ] Option 3: do not adopt [Prior to this vote, option 2 had previously passed with minfrin, issac, sctemme, jim in support. Subsequently, wrowe endorsed option 2, while minfrin, jim introduced option 1. Please vote.] On 12/13/2011 9:19 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > Hi all, > > I have concluded negotiation with the BBC to open source some httpd modules > that I wrote under the AL, and the BBC have very kindly agreed to donate the > code to the ASF[1], which I believe would fit well as subprojects of httpd, > and would like to know whether httpd would accept these. > > To be clear, this isn't a "code dump", my intention is to continue to develop > and support this moving forward, and hopefully expand the community around > them. > > - mod_firehose: "tcpdump for httpd" > > Based originally on mod_dumpio.c, mod_firehose is an httpd filter that writes > the contents of a request and/or a response to a file or pipe in such a way > that the requests can be reconstructed later using a second dedicated tool > called "firehose". > > It was initially developed to help debug restful services that were secured > with client certificates and therefore opaque to other tools like tcpdump or > tcpflow, but was then subsequently used to record "dirty traffic" for > subsequent replay for the purposes of testing. > > The module and the corresponding firehose demultiplexer was used to uncover > some of the more tricky bugs in mod_cache, as well as protocol > inconsistencies in backend services, and would prove very useful to anyone > deploying restful services. We have also intended it to be used to create a > "dark live" environment, where live traffic can be split off and diverted to > a staging environment to test whether a software update works correctly. > > The code is currently packaged as an RPM, wrapped in autotools, and a > snapshot is available here: > > http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/bbc-donated/mod_firehose/ > http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/bbc-donated/firehose/ > > The corresponding README documenting in more detail is here: > > http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/bbc-donated/mod_firehose/README > > The code itself is here: > > http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/bbc-donated/mod_firehose/mod_firehose.c > http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/bbc-donated/firehose/firehose.c > > Obviously the expectation is for the documentation to be completed and > fleshed out. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52322 > > Regards, > Graham > -- > >
