Re: Upcoming 2.0.56 release (?)
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:26:39AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll RM a tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there are issues :) I don't know if it's implicit or not, but we shouldn't bundle unreleased libraries, so it shouldn't be enough that an apr(-util) passed the vote, it should be GA too. We need thicker chinese walls :) Just a minor change to our sometime-adopted procedure that might help non-APR httpd-committers out. I've finally deleted that patch proposal which made no sense and taken a look at some more of the proposals. Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe there's a subdomain or two running 2.0 still? -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upcoming 2.0.56 release (?)
On Monday 27 March 2006 11:07, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe there's a subdomain or two running 2.0 still? Huh? Who's talking about downgrading? -- Nick Kew
Re: Upcoming 2.0.56 release (?)
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:21:46AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote: On Monday 27 March 2006 11:07, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe there's a subdomain or two running 2.0 still? Huh? Who's talking about downgrading? Until now, we've always had 3 days of 2.0 in production on ASF hardware before going GA, and I'm wondering if we now treat 2.0 like 1.3 and not do this on apache.org, or we politely ask infra to try out the candidate (I don't think there's any 2.2-only features being used on a.o). -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upcoming 2.0.56 release (?)
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:31:36AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Until now, we've always had 3 days of 2.0 in production on ASF hardware before going GA, and I'm wondering if we now treat 2.0 like 1.3 and not do this on apache.org, or we politely ask infra to try out the candidate (I don't think there's any 2.2-only features being used on a.o). That's generally something only done for the latest and greatest - I don't think 1.3 has been tested that way for years. vh Mads Toftum -- `Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
Re: Upcoming 2.0.56 release (?)
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:26:39AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll RM a tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there are issues :) I don't know if it's implicit or not, but we shouldn't bundle unreleased libraries, so it shouldn't be enough that an apr(-util) passed the vote, it should be GA too. We need thicker chinese walls :) Explain the distinction :) AFAIK APR is holding a vote on releasing 0.9.11. AFAIK APR just held a vote and released 1.2.6. APR hasn't released any alpha/beta versions in a very long time (probably wouldn't either, until they get ready for APR 2.) I've finally deleted that patch proposal which made no sense and taken a look at some more of the proposals. Rather than delete it - you could have also added the subsequent patches that were applied to server/mpm/winnt/mpm_winnt.c. I put in that comment to prod FirstBill to clarify which later patches were necessary. Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe there's a subdomain or two running 2.0 still? I think we have alot of sandboxes, but it's true that we aren't quite in shape to eat our own dogfood on 2.0.x anymore. On the other hand, we haven't been running 1.3.x in a very long time, and yet (and rarely) ship a 1.3.x without passing that metric. I doubt we can ever return to that state, but if there are zones running 2.0 it would be nice to get this validated in the real world. On the other hand, it's a sorry state that we can't run anything other than -dev today, I do expect 2.2.1 to be running on our post 2.0 infrastructure before it will garner my +1. Bill
Re: Upcoming 2.0.56 release (?)
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:46:05PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Provided that passes, and if nobody speaks quickly and loudly, I'll RM a tarball once that vote on [EMAIL PROTECTED] flies. Speak now if there are issues :) I don't know if it's implicit or not, but we shouldn't bundle unreleased libraries, so it shouldn't be enough that an apr(-util) passed the vote, it should be GA too. We need thicker chinese walls :) Explain the distinction :) AFAIK APR is holding a vote on releasing 0.9.11. AFAIK APR just held a vote and released 1.2.6. APR hasn't released any alpha/beta versions in a very long time (probably wouldn't either, until they get ready for APR 2.) Oh I just mean that the tarballs be generally available, ie that apr actually have released. In the past, there have been httpd votes which incorporated an unreleased apr, though it was clear that it would be released by the time httpd was. Now there are some more httpd folk who are not apr folk, and it can be confusing. I've finally deleted that patch proposal which made no sense and taken a look at some more of the proposals. Rather than delete it - you could have also added the subsequent patches that were applied to server/mpm/winnt/mpm_winnt.c. I put in that comment to prod FirstBill to clarify which later patches were necessary. I brought it up on list 3 times, including specifically asking what people meant by the proposal and got nothing, so now it's gone. I couldn't add those patches (it's not even clear what patches were being talked about), as it's not clear that that's what the people voted on. I guess I could have replaced it with a different proposal and reset the vote count to zero. Since this is our first post 2.2 GA release, do we still want feedback from infra? downgrading a.o might send some bad signals ;-) Or maybe there's a subdomain or two running 2.0 still? I think we have alot of sandboxes, but it's true that we aren't quite in shape to eat our own dogfood on 2.0.x anymore. On the other hand, we haven't been running 1.3.x in a very long time, and yet (and rarely) ship a 1.3.x without passing that metric. I doubt we can ever return to that state, but if there are zones running 2.0 it would be nice to get this validated in the real world. On the other hand, it's a sorry state that we can't run anything other than -dev today, I do expect 2.2.1 to be running on our post 2.0 infrastructure before it will garner my +1. +1 -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
