Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Jan 6, 2010, at 06:22 , Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: If one of the goals here is to reduce the support nuisance and help folk out, should we also ask the Apache PR team for help? I'm sure they'd be willing to help publicise the change "After 15 years of community support ... mumble mumble ... marking version 1 of Apache as end of life with final release ...mumble mumble ... 10 years of successful Apache 2 ... mumble mumble .. please use 2.2.x " . Yes please. At least give PRC a chance to say "yes, what you've written is just fine", on the off chance that they'll say it needs something else. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2010, at 15:31 , Jorge Schrauwen wrote: > >> >> +1 (non-binding) There are still to many questions about the 1.3 >> branch on the support channels IMHO > > > > One hopes that a formal EOL statement will be the encouragement that most of > these folks need to move into the new century. If one of the goals here is to reduce the support nuisance and help folk out, should we also ask the Apache PR team for help? I'm sure they'd be willing to help publicise the change "After 15 years of community support ... mumble mumble ... marking version 1 of Apache as end of life with final release ...mumble mumble ... 10 years of successful Apache 2 ... mumble mumble .. please use 2.2.x " . -- Colm
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
Based on this thread, I'll going to commit an EOL notice later today (1.3.x is still CTR) and language nits and so on can be fixed with patches/commits as appropriate, and if anyone feels strongly they can revert :-) On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. > wrote: >> Res wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these > products, a big +1 on that proposal. > Sadly, questions will keep on showing up for a long time :( >>> >>> I agree, however if it is EOL'd (yes Jeff, I agree this is likely more >>> of an appropriate term :) ) you more or less can advise the requestor >>> they are using a very old and unsupported version and that they should >>> use the current stable version 2.2.xx >> >> These questions aren't a bother on an established 1.3 server, we all have >> to support legacy systems. >> >> What is frightening is the number of users who are clearly deploying their >> httpd server with 1.3, for the first time, and trying to learn that. Almost >> want to suggest to them that they go take a community college class on COBOL >> while they are at it, since they are clearly trying to improve their >> technical >> knowledge. Heh >> > > You could just put a anti troll like system where you ask a question > only someone who's used 1.3 for a long time would know before letting > them download. New users wouldn't be able to answer it and would be > pointed to 2.2 branch ;) > > > It's understandable that you can't just magicly update a legacy 1.3 to > a 2.x series without breaking a whole lot of stuff. > But's sadly as you say, a lot users seem to be new to httpd and still > grab 1.3 for some insane reason! > > Maybe adding some form of color coding (for the non-colorblind) on the > download page, green -> current, orange/yellow -> old stable, red -> > EOL > Then again that would probably not have a big effect :( > > I also think punch cards > COBAL course! That will teach em to proof > read there code before hitting compile ;) > > /me off to more studying > > Jorge > -- Colm
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:30 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Res wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these products, a big +1 on that proposal. >>> Sadly, questions will keep on showing up for a long time :( >> >> I agree, however if it is EOL'd (yes Jeff, I agree this is likely more >> of an appropriate term :) ) you more or less can advise the requestor >> they are using a very old and unsupported version and that they should >> use the current stable version 2.2.xx > > These questions aren't a bother on an established 1.3 server, we all have > to support legacy systems. > > What is frightening is the number of users who are clearly deploying their > httpd server with 1.3, for the first time, and trying to learn that. Almost > want to suggest to them that they go take a community college class on COBOL > while they are at it, since they are clearly trying to improve their technical > knowledge. Heh > You could just put a anti troll like system where you ask a question only someone who's used 1.3 for a long time would know before letting them download. New users wouldn't be able to answer it and would be pointed to 2.2 branch ;) It's understandable that you can't just magicly update a legacy 1.3 to a 2.x series without breaking a whole lot of stuff. But's sadly as you say, a lot users seem to be new to httpd and still grab 1.3 for some insane reason! Maybe adding some form of color coding (for the non-colorblind) on the download page, green -> current, orange/yellow -> old stable, red -> EOL Then again that would probably not have a big effect :( I also think punch cards > COBAL course! That will teach em to proof read there code before hitting compile ;) /me off to more studying Jorge
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > One hopes that a formal EOL statement will be the encouragement that most of > these folks need to move into the new century. +1 to EOL for 1.3.x and capturing what that means to casual users in a formal document. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
Res wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: >>> Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these >>> products, a big +1 on that proposal. >>> >> Sadly, questions will keep on showing up for a long time :( > > I agree, however if it is EOL'd (yes Jeff, I agree this is likely more > of an appropriate term :) ) you more or less can advise the requestor > they are using a very old and unsupported version and that they should > use the current stable version 2.2.xx These questions aren't a bother on an established 1.3 server, we all have to support legacy systems. What is frightening is the number of users who are clearly deploying their httpd server with 1.3, for the first time, and trying to learn that. Almost want to suggest to them that they go take a community college class on COBOL while they are at it, since they are clearly trying to improve their technical knowledge. Heh
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these products, a big +1 on that proposal. Sadly, questions will keep on showing up for a long time :( I agree, however if it is EOL'd (yes Jeff, I agree this is likely more of an appropriate term :) ) you more or less can advise the requestor they are using a very old and unsupported version and that they should use the current stable version 2.2.xx -- Res "What does Windows have that Linux doesn't?" - One hell of a lot of bugs!
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Jan 5, 2010, at 15:31 , Jorge Schrauwen wrote: +1 (non-binding) There are still to many questions about the 1.3 branch on the support channels IMHO One hopes that a formal EOL statement will be the encouragement that most of these folks need to move into the new century. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these > products, a big +1 on that proposal. > Sadly, questions will keep on showing up for a long time :( On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Dan Poirier wrote: >> Colm MacCárthaigh writes: >> >>> Because ... stealing an idea from wrowe@ ... how about we formally >>> deprecate the 1.3.x branch? Make one more release, but attach a notice >>> to the effect that it will be the final release, and that in future >>> we'll be distributing security updates by other means :-) > > +1! Yes please :-) > +1 (non-binding) There are still to many questions about the 1.3 branch on the support channels IMHO >> >> While we're at it, how about issuing a statement regarding how much >> longer 2.0.x will be supported? It doesn't seem to get much maintenance >> attention these days either. > > Also +1 > +1 (non-binding) > N >
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Lars Eilebrecht wrote: > Jeff Trawick wrote: > >> I'd stay away from the word "deprecate." In software, it means that >> at some point in the future the user must migrate to a new >> interface/feature; formal deprecation is usually announced at the >> beginning of the ability to transition. We're years past that for >> 1.3. Anybody really paying attention already knows the scoop. > > IMHO the correct term would be "end of life". > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-life_(product) thanks; IMO "EOL" is a much better fit for 1.3 than "deprecated" > > +1 on stopping to support 1.3.x and to issue a formal "end-of-life > notification" as part of a final 1.3 release. > > Further, I'd suggest to issue an end-of-live notification for > httpd 2.0.x with a date 6-12 month in the future. sounds right I think we should plan a wrap-up release with a small number of safe/important fixes in advance of the chosen date, leaving some extra time before the EOL date to correct any regressions.
[VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Dan Poirier wrote: > Colm MacCárthaigh writes: > >> Because ... stealing an idea from wrowe@ ... how about we formally >> deprecate the 1.3.x branch? Make one more release, but attach a notice >> to the effect that it will be the final release, and that in future >> we'll be distributing security updates by other means :-) +1! Yes please :-) > > While we're at it, how about issuing a statement regarding how much > longer 2.0.x will be supported? It doesn't seem to get much maintenance > attention these days either. Also +1 N
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
Jeff Trawick wrote: > I'd stay away from the word "deprecate." In software, it means that > at some point in the future the user must migrate to a new > interface/feature; formal deprecation is usually announced at the > beginning of the ability to transition. We're years past that for > 1.3. Anybody really paying attention already knows the scoop. IMHO the correct term would be "end of life". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-life_(product) +1 on stopping to support 1.3.x and to issue a formal "end-of-life notification" as part of a final 1.3 release. Further, I'd suggest to issue an end-of-live notification for httpd 2.0.x with a date 6-12 month in the future. cheers... -- Lars Eilebrecht l...@eilebrecht.net
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Res wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >> Apache HTTP Server 1.3.x >> * hasn't been actively maintained for years >> * is not at all suitable for use on any version of Windows >> * has been replaced by Apache HTTP Server 2.x, and our only >> recommended version at present is the latest 2.2.x release >> * is missing numerous less-critical security fixes when compared with >> 2.2.x >> * may not have additional fixes released in the future, and any such >> fixes may be released as separate patches instead of as a full release > > > What you have pretty much just done, is describe deprecation We will just have to disagree on what software vendors mean (and thus what software users understand) when "deprecation" is announced.
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jeff Trawick wrote: Apache HTTP Server 1.3.x * hasn't been actively maintained for years * is not at all suitable for use on any version of Windows * has been replaced by Apache HTTP Server 2.x, and our only recommended version at present is the latest 2.2.x release * is missing numerous less-critical security fixes when compared with 2.2.x * may not have additional fixes released in the future, and any such fixes may be released as separate patches instead of as a full release What you have pretty much just done, is describe deprecation -- Res "What does Windows have that Linux doesn't?" - One hell of a lot of bugs!
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
2010/1/4 Colm MacCárthaigh : > Observers of the commits list may have noticed some small cleanups to > the 1.3.x branch earlier today. There are currently a number of > several years-old backport/patch proposals in there too, including two > marked as release show-stoppers (neither actually stopped the show, > when last we had a release). > > I've reviewed and tested the relatively low-hanging fruit, and cleaned > up the backport proposals to be functional patches. If you really > really think any of those patches are important, now is a good time to > review/test/vote! > > Because ... stealing an idea from wrowe@ ... how about we formally > deprecate the 1.3.x branch? Make one more release, but attach a notice > to the effect that it will be the final release, and that in future > we'll be distributing security updates by other means :-) I'd stay away from the word "deprecate." In software, it means that at some point in the future the user must migrate to a new interface/feature; formal deprecation is usually announced at the beginning of the ability to transition. We're years past that for 1.3. Anybody really paying attention already knows the scoop. What we want to convince the incurious of is that Apache HTTP Server 1.3.x * hasn't been actively maintained for years * is not at all suitable for use on any version of Windows * has been replaced by Apache HTTP Server 2.x, and our only recommended version at present is the latest 2.2.x release * is missing numerous less-critical security fixes when compared with 2.2.x * may not have additional fixes released in the future, and any such fixes may be released as separate patches instead of as a full release
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
Colm MacCárthaigh writes: > Because ... stealing an idea from wrowe@ ... how about we formally > deprecate the 1.3.x branch? Make one more release, but attach a notice > to the effect that it will be the final release, and that in future > we'll be distributing security updates by other means :-) (non-binding) +1 While we're at it, how about issuing a statement regarding how much longer 2.0.x will be supported? It doesn't seem to get much maintenance attention these days either. Dan
Re: [VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
Speaking from the community that provides end-user support for these products, a big +1 on that proposal. On Jan 4, 2010, at 16:57 , Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: Observers of the commits list may have noticed some small cleanups to the 1.3.x branch earlier today. There are currently a number of several years-old backport/patch proposals in there too, including two marked as release show-stoppers (neither actually stopped the show, when last we had a release). I've reviewed and tested the relatively low-hanging fruit, and cleaned up the backport proposals to be functional patches. If you really really think any of those patches are important, now is a good time to review/test/vote! Because ... stealing an idea from wrowe@ ... how about we formally deprecate the 1.3.x branch? Make one more release, but attach a notice to the effect that it will be the final release, and that in future we'll be distributing security updates by other means :-) Patch; Index: README === --- README (revision 895672) +++ README (working copy) @@ -14,9 +14,16 @@ The Latest Version -- - Details of the latest version can be found on the Apache HTTP - server project page under http://httpd.apache.org/. + As of January 2010, support for version 1.3 of Apache has been + formally deprecated. Updates will be available as patches, from + http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/ + Users are encouraged to upgrade to version 2 of Apache httpd, + and information on upgrading is available at; + + http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/upgrading.html + http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/upgrading.html + Documentation - Index: src/CHANGES === --- src/CHANGES (revision 895795) +++ src/CHANGES (working copy) @@ -1,6 +1,22 @@ Changes with Apache 1.3.42 + *) INFORMATIONAL: Please note that this release is considered + the final release of the Apache 1.3.x branch. Future + updates will be distributed as patches, via + http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/ + + Apache 1.3.x users who wish to avail of security releases + are advised to use Apache 2 or higher. Please see; + + http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/upgrading.html + http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/upgrading.html + + for information on upgrading. On behalf of the Apache + httpd group; thank you to everyone who helped make + Apache 1.3.x the most successful, and most used, + webserver software on the planet. + Changes with Apache 1.3.41 *) SECURITY: CVE-2007-6388 (cve.mitre.org) -- Colm -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com
[VOTE] Formal deprecation of 1.3.x branch
Observers of the commits list may have noticed some small cleanups to the 1.3.x branch earlier today. There are currently a number of several years-old backport/patch proposals in there too, including two marked as release show-stoppers (neither actually stopped the show, when last we had a release). I've reviewed and tested the relatively low-hanging fruit, and cleaned up the backport proposals to be functional patches. If you really really think any of those patches are important, now is a good time to review/test/vote! Because ... stealing an idea from wrowe@ ... how about we formally deprecate the 1.3.x branch? Make one more release, but attach a notice to the effect that it will be the final release, and that in future we'll be distributing security updates by other means :-) Patch; Index: README === --- README (revision 895672) +++ README (working copy) @@ -14,9 +14,16 @@ The Latest Version -- - Details of the latest version can be found on the Apache HTTP - server project page under http://httpd.apache.org/. + As of January 2010, support for version 1.3 of Apache has been + formally deprecated. Updates will be available as patches, from + http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/ + Users are encouraged to upgrade to version 2 of Apache httpd, + and information on upgrading is available at; + + http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/upgrading.html + http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/upgrading.html + Documentation - Index: src/CHANGES === --- src/CHANGES (revision 895795) +++ src/CHANGES (working copy) @@ -1,6 +1,22 @@ Changes with Apache 1.3.42 + *) INFORMATIONAL: Please note that this release is considered + the final release of the Apache 1.3.x branch. Future + updates will be distributed as patches, via + http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/patches/ + + Apache 1.3.x users who wish to avail of security releases + are advised to use Apache 2 or higher. Please see; + + http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/upgrading.html + http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/upgrading.html + + for information on upgrading. On behalf of the Apache + httpd group; thank you to everyone who helped make + Apache 1.3.x the most successful, and most used, + webserver software on the planet. + Changes with Apache 1.3.41 *) SECURITY: CVE-2007-6388 (cve.mitre.org) -- Colm
