Re: ITR 1.3.x Friday
Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: I don't think there's much interest in merging any of the patches that are currently in the STATUS, so I'm intending to a roll a 1.3.x release Friday for testing/voting. With a release next week. Unfortunately testing 1.3.x is more painful than it used to be, and so far I haven't managed to get 1.3.x to pass a clean suite of tests on *any* platform - but I can at least make sure that there are no regressions. With some massaging I can get to 96% coverage on Linux and FreeBSD, and 92% coverage on Solaris. Another interesting problem is that 1.3.x's configure/apaci doesn't actually work with dash - so the tarball refuses to build out of the box on Ubuntu and Debian. Nice. It sounds to me like it may be a bit of a pandora's box making another release. Is it not possible to just make a patch available? Regards, Graham --
Re: ITR 1.3.x Friday
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote: It sounds to me like it may be a bit of a pandora's box making another release. Is it not possible to just make a patch available? It sure is a PITA, but I think it would be more professional to get a final release out there - if only because it's what upstream packagers and users are used to, many will have scripts and systems oriented around a tarball. We can give them one more, and a warning that it's the last - so they have some time to rewrite their systems. That said, if it turns out to be so much of a PITA that we can't muster 3 +1's for a release ... I'll just post a patch. -- Colm
Re: ITR 1.3.x Friday
On 06.01.2010 12:18, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: I don't think there's much interest in merging any of the patches that are currently in the STATUS, so I'm intending to a roll a 1.3.x release Friday for testing/voting. With a release next week. Unfortunately testing 1.3.x is more painful than it used to be, and so far I haven't managed to get 1.3.x to pass a clean suite of tests on *any* platform - but I can at least make sure that there are no regressions. With some massaging I can get to 96% coverage on Linux and FreeBSD, and 92% coverage on Solaris. Another interesting problem is that 1.3.x's configure/apaci doesn't actually work with dash - so the tarball refuses to build out of the box on Ubuntu and Debian. Nice. I did a quick diff between r610830 (tag 1.3.41) and today in the 1.3.x branch: - src/support/logresolve.c: http://svn.eu.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=702162 protect from mismanaged DNS which return blank/null hostnames. - conf/mime.types: several updates by Roy - Update copyright year - Update of version number - Adding a copyright notice - Update of STATUS - Update of CHANGES with the EOL note and addition of a BZ number to an older entry - Update of README with the EOL note - Update of committer list in ABOUT_APACHE So there's only one source update and the update of the mime.types. Is that worth a release? Regards, Rainer
Re: ITR 1.3.x Friday
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote: So there's only one source update and the update of the mime.types. Is that worth a release? There's a pending security fix too that will be committed before the roll. -- Colm
Re: ITR 1.3.x Friday
Let me know if you need any help :) On Jan 6, 2010, at 6:18 AM, Colm MacCárthaigh wrote: I don't think there's much interest in merging any of the patches that are currently in the STATUS, so I'm intending to a roll a 1.3.x release Friday for testing/voting. With a release next week. Unfortunately testing 1.3.x is more painful than it used to be, and so far I haven't managed to get 1.3.x to pass a clean suite of tests on *any* platform - but I can at least make sure that there are no regressions. With some massaging I can get to 96% coverage on Linux and FreeBSD, and 92% coverage on Solaris. Another interesting problem is that 1.3.x's configure/apaci doesn't actually work with dash - so the tarball refuses to build out of the box on Ubuntu and Debian. Nice. -- Colm
