Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:15:43AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote: > > http://people.heanet.ie/~colmmacc/manual/misc/cachingguide.html.en > > > >Which is about half done. Comments & contributions welcome. > > Looks good. A few comments: > > See docs like env.html, sections.html, and logs.html for an example > structure. We usually have "Related Directives" and "Related Modules" > sections at the top. And we use "Examples" instead of "Case studies". No problem. > You can go ahead and commit it whenever you want. But I'd put it in > the root directory of the manual rather than "misc". That directory > (and, in general, every directory called "misc") just winds up being a > dumping ground for things with no good place. This doc belongs beside > logs.html, urlmapping.html, sections.html, etc, in the main directory. I'll commit it once an account is set up, most of the TBD's on that page are just awaiting a copy and paste from my notes. Many thanks for the comments. -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: In this spirit, a major new feature of httpd-2.2 will be reliably working Caching, but the documentation on Caching is a bit tough on users right now. I'm currently working on this; http://people.heanet.ie/~colmmacc/manual/misc/cachingguide.html.en Which is about half done. Comments & contributions welcome. Looks good. A few comments: See docs like env.html, sections.html, and logs.html for an example structure. We usually have "Related Directives" and "Related Modules" sections at the top. And we use "Examples" instead of "Case studies". You can go ahead and commit it whenever you want. But I'd put it in the root directory of the manual rather than "misc". That directory (and, in general, every directory called "misc") just winds up being a dumping ground for things with no good place. This doc belongs beside logs.html, urlmapping.html, sections.html, etc, in the main directory. Joshua.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Joe Orton wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:51:48AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Joe Orton wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 03:07:03PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > On Aug 19, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: > > > > >I said initially that you will have a problems with that patch. > > > > >Since you don't have a windows platform, someone else might > > > > >test that too. I'm on vacation starting tomorrow, so could not > > > > >help you resolve that for some time. > > > > > > > > Yes, now that we have a basic test for the balancer, others can > > > > test. > > > > > > OK for reference, since I volunteered :) the proxy_balancer.t tests you > > > added to httpd-test passed on all my trunk regression test runs last > > > night: worker and prefork, pool-debug and not. > > > Did you comment out Mladen's "HACK" lines before doing the test? > > Tests ran from trunk @ rev 233564, so that was after Mladen reverted > that out, yes. > Cool, thanks! -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Sith happens" - Yoda
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 07:51:48AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 03:07:03PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > On Aug 19, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: > > > >I said initially that you will have a problems with that patch. > > > >Since you don't have a windows platform, someone else might > > > >test that too. I'm on vacation starting tomorrow, so could not > > > >help you resolve that for some time. > > > > > > Yes, now that we have a basic test for the balancer, others can > > > test. > > > > OK for reference, since I volunteered :) the proxy_balancer.t tests you > > added to httpd-test passed on all my trunk regression test runs last > > night: worker and prefork, pool-debug and not. > Did you comment out Mladen's "HACK" lines before doing the test? Tests ran from trunk @ rev 233564, so that was after Mladen reverted that out, yes. joe
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Joe Orton wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 03:07:03PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: > > >I said initially that you will have a problems with that patch. > > >Since you don't have a windows platform, someone else might > > >test that too. I'm on vacation starting tomorrow, so could not > > >help you resolve that for some time. > > > > Yes, now that we have a basic test for the balancer, others can > > test. > > OK for reference, since I volunteered :) the proxy_balancer.t tests you > added to httpd-test passed on all my trunk regression test runs last > night: worker and prefork, pool-debug and not. > Did you comment out Mladen's "HACK" lines before doing the test? I am planning on commiting a quick patch to bypass those lines to allow people to test. Again, why he's not seeing that hook run doesn't make sense... -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Sith happens" - Yoda
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 03:07:03PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > On Aug 19, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: > >I said initially that you will have a problems with that patch. > >Since you don't have a windows platform, someone else might > >test that too. I'm on vacation starting tomorrow, so could not > >help you resolve that for some time. > > Yes, now that we have a basic test for the balancer, others can > test. OK for reference, since I volunteered :) the proxy_balancer.t tests you added to httpd-test passed on all my trunk regression test runs last night: worker and prefork, pool-debug and not. Thanks for adding the test case! joe
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Aug 19, 2005, at 2:10 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: The hook gets called in post_config, but not in create_config. Of course if you move it to the post_config the config will not work, because the array is still uninitialized. Think it's a hook related stuff and .dll loading. That is seriously weird... The proxy_run_load_lbmethods() call is *in* create_proxy_config(). Right. Like said, the hook will be called if you move it to the post config, but then it's too late. The problem might be that the module hook initialization is done *after* create_config, so you have a empty hook to run. Umm... the registering of hooks is done at ap_add_loaded_module() (and ap_add_module()) time. I said initially that you will have a problems with that patch. Since you don't have a windows platform, someone else might test that too. I'm on vacation starting tomorrow, so could not help you resolve that for some time. Yes, now that we have a basic test for the balancer, others can test.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Jim Jagielski wrote: The hook gets called in post_config, but not in create_config. Of course if you move it to the post_config the config will not work, because the array is still uninitialized. Think it's a hook related stuff and .dll loading. That is seriously weird... The proxy_run_load_lbmethods() call is *in* create_proxy_config(). Right. Like said, the hook will be called if you move it to the post config, but then it's too late. The problem might be that the module hook initialization is done *after* create_config, so you have a empty hook to run. I said initially that you will have a problems with that patch. Since you don't have a windows platform, someone else might test that too. I'm on vacation starting tomorrow, so could not help you resolve that for some time. Regards, Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Mladen Turk wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > On Aug 19, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: > > > >> Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> > >>> This is weird... Can you Email me your config file? No need > >>> to send it to the list. > >>> > >> > >> Any lbmethod is failing and the conf->lbmethods->nelts is 0. > >> The add_lbmethods hook is never called. > >> > > > > Off the top of my head I can't figure out why it's not being called. > > Is there some Windows specific build file that must be updated > > to reflect the new hook? > > > > No there is not. > The hook gets called in post_config, but not in create_config. > Of course if you move it to the post_config the config will > not work, because the array is still uninitialized. > > Think it's a hook related stuff and .dll loading. > That is seriously weird... The proxy_run_load_lbmethods() call is *in* create_proxy_config(). -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Sith happens" - Yoda
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Jim Jagielski wrote: On Aug 19, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: This is weird... Can you Email me your config file? No need to send it to the list. Any lbmethod is failing and the conf->lbmethods->nelts is 0. The add_lbmethods hook is never called. Off the top of my head I can't figure out why it's not being called. Is there some Windows specific build file that must be updated to reflect the new hook? No there is not. The hook gets called in post_config, but not in create_config. Of course if you move it to the post_config the config will not work, because the array is still uninitialized. Think it's a hook related stuff and .dll loading. Regards, Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Aug 19, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Mladen Turk wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: This is weird... Can you Email me your config file? No need to send it to the list. Any lbmethod is failing and the conf->lbmethods->nelts is 0. The add_lbmethods hook is never called. Off the top of my head I can't figure out why it's not being called. Is there some Windows specific build file that must be updated to reflect the new hook?
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Jim Jagielski wrote: This is weird... Can you Email me your config file? No need to send it to the list. Any lbmethod is failing and the conf->lbmethods->nelts is 0. The add_lbmethods hook is never called. BalancerMember http://localhost:8080 ProxySet lbmethod="byrequests" ProxySet lbmethod="bytraffic" Regards, Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Aug 19, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Mladen Turk wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Is it a scope issue because find_best_bytraffic is defined as static...? Hmmm. I need to look into that. Perhaps the problem is because on windows the config is run twice. It is on Unix as well. Also seems that the hook is never run, or is run only once: For example: ProxySet lbmethod="byrequests" returns: Syntax error on line 496 of C:/W/apache/headd/conf/httpd.conf: ProxySet unknown lbmethod lbmethod balancer://cluster This is weird... Can you Email me your config file? No need to send it to the list. Thanks!
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Is it a scope issue because find_best_bytraffic is defined
as static...? Hmmm. I need to look into that.
Perhaps the problem is because on windows the config is
run twice.
Also seems that the hook is never run, or is run only once:
For example:
ProxySet lbmethod="byrequests"
returns:
Syntax error on line 496 of C:/W/apache/headd/conf/httpd.conf:
ProxySet unknown lbmethod lbmethod balancer://cluster
I have added:
static proxy_balancer_method _default_lbmethod = {
"byrequests",
find_best_byrequests,
NULL
};
... and then in the child_init of balancer:
for (i = 0; i < conf->balancers->nelts; i++) {
init_balancer_members(conf, s, balancer);
/* Initialize default lbmethod */
if (!balancer->lbmethod->finder) {
balancer->lbmethod = &_default_lbmethod;
}
balancer++;
}
This resolves core dump, but does not resolve the config params.
Regards,
Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Mladen Turk wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > > I've confirmed that without that hack, the server works fine > > and as expected... I'm not sure, but I would almost > > bet that it was due not all required *.o's being > > rebuilt, and the hook in mod_proxy not being called > > when you tested. > > > > Can others confirm one way or another? > > > > The problem is that there is no default lbmethod. > If you set the "lbmethod" to the balancer config then it'll work. > Without it will core dump, because it will be NULL. > With my patch it will use the byrequest as default lbmethod, > so it's probably OK, and not an ugly hack after all :) > H... it's always set whenever ap_proxy_add_balancer() is called. Let me keep on looking :) But yeah, if the code works, then your "HACK" is nothing of the sort but rather good defensive programming :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Sith happens" - Yoda
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Aug 19, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Mladen Turk wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: What platform... seems to work fine under Linux and OS X. Windows This is what add_lbmethods does... It adds the method, but remember, the widows don't have fork, so probably the data from parent is not there. The data is stored within the basic proxy data structs, so I don't see how fork has anything to do with it... I must be missing something obvious... sorry. During the create_proxy_config() stage, the load lbmethods hook is run. This hook pushes into proxy_server_conf->lbmethods 2 proxy_balancer_method structs, which contain the name and function pointers for the 2 methods. When ap_proxy_add_balancer() is called, it creates the proxy_server_conf->balancers entry (proxy_balancer_method) and then sets it to the byrequests method by scanning through the proxy_server_conf->lbmethods array for it. It then sets the proxy_balancer_method->lbmethod to that pointer. All this is within the per server data structs... Is it a scope issue because find_best_bytraffic is defined as static...? Hmmm. I need to look into that.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Jim Jagielski wrote: I've confirmed that without that hack, the server works fine and as expected... I'm not sure, but I would almost bet that it was due not all required *.o's being rebuilt, and the hook in mod_proxy not being called when you tested. Can others confirm one way or another? The problem is that there is no default lbmethod. If you set the "lbmethod" to the balancer config then it'll work. Without it will core dump, because it will be NULL. With my patch it will use the byrequest as default lbmethod, so it's probably OK, and not an ugly hack after all :) Regards, Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Jim Jagielski wrote: What platform... seems to work fine under Linux and OS X. Windows This is what add_lbmethods does... It adds the method, but remember, the widows don't have fork, so probably the data from parent is not there. Did you do a complete make diskclean and then rebuild? Right, fresh from the SVN. I always do a SVN co when doing release check. Regards, Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Joe Orton wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:17:45AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Well, what do you know. The balancer had never had any test cases > > at ALL in httpd-test... > > A you've blown my sarcasm inhibitor now cap'n, I can't help it... > > Gee, really? Would that be why nobody seems sure whether it actually > works or not? Let's not add any then, this is clearly a good state to > be in. > *giggle* No, actually you are right. We are claiming that that balancer capability is a big cool feature of 2.1/2.2, yet we have no tests against it, other than what the few of us who use and develop it do by hand. This is a huge hole. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Sith happens" - Yoda
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:17:45AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Well, what do you know. The balancer had never had any test cases > at ALL in httpd-test... A you've blown my sarcasm inhibitor now cap'n, I can't help it... Gee, really? Would that be why nobody seems sure whether it actually works or not? Let's not add any then, this is clearly a good state to be in. OK. I promise I'll shut up again now. ;) joe
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Well, what do you know. The balancer had never had any test cases at ALL in httpd-test... Guess we should strip out the whole shebang since there was never a test that it ever worked... :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Sith happens" - Yoda
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Joe Orton wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:50:24AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > On Aug 19, 2005, at 9:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > >What platform... seems to work fine under Linux and OS X. > > > > > >This is what add_lbmethods does... > > > > > >Did you do a complete make diskclean and then rebuild? > > > > > > > I've confirmed that without that hack, the server works fine > > and as expected... I'm not sure, but I would almost > > bet that it was due not all required *.o's being > > rebuilt, and the hook in mod_proxy not being called > > when you tested. > > > > Can others confirm one way or another? > > I volunteer you to add a test case to httpd-test to verify the stuff you > didn't break isn't broken, and I'll volunteer myself to run it ;) > I've tested by hand... will add a test case to httpd-test. Boy... things have really changed in the last several years.. -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "Sith happens" - Yoda
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
In this spirit, a major new feature of httpd-2.2 will be reliably working Caching, but the documentation on Caching is a bit tough on users right now. I'm currently working on this; http://people.heanet.ie/~colmmacc/manual/misc/cachingguide.html.en Which is about half done. Comments & contributions welcome. On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 08:30:32PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]'ers... > > As Paul mentions below, on Friday (probably 1 a.m. ;-) he will > tag 2.1.7. This is just a reminder to our most excellent doco > team that, once ack'ed - this becomes 2.1 beta, and then... > (drum roll please...) 2.2 GA(!) > > So if you had changes to catch up with 2.1 that perhaps have > been sitting in your local checkouts, now is an excellent time > to commit the docs improvements. > > Each release, we state "v x.x is the best available version > of Apache", and certainly the docs@ team has proven this! > When 2.2 final (not beta, not alpha) drops, we certainly all > want this to be true not only of the code, but also of the > accompanying documentation! And I trust you will make it so. > > Yours, > > Bill > > p.s. it's been a while - have I told you all lately that > you rock?!? > > :) > > > At 12:43 AM 8/18/2005, Paul Querna wrote: > >Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from > >trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to > >include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. > > > >As long as 2.1.7 seems good, I would like to do a vote on making it a Beta. > > > >Thanks, > > > >-Paul > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:50:24AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2005, at 9:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > >What platform... seems to work fine under Linux and OS X. > > > >This is what add_lbmethods does... > > > >Did you do a complete make diskclean and then rebuild? > > > > I've confirmed that without that hack, the server works fine > and as expected... I'm not sure, but I would almost > bet that it was due not all required *.o's being > rebuilt, and the hook in mod_proxy not being called > when you tested. > > Can others confirm one way or another? I volunteer you to add a test case to httpd-test to verify the stuff you didn't break isn't broken, and I'll volunteer myself to run it ;) joe
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Aug 19, 2005, at 9:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: What platform... seems to work fine under Linux and OS X. This is what add_lbmethods does... Did you do a complete make diskclean and then rebuild? I've confirmed that without that hack, the server works fine and as expected... I'm not sure, but I would almost bet that it was due not all required *.o's being rebuilt, and the hook in mod_proxy not being called when you tested. Can others confirm one way or another?
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
What platform... seems to work fine under Linux and OS X. This is what add_lbmethods does... Did you do a complete make diskclean and then rebuild? On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:06 AM, Mladen Turk wrote: Paul Querna wrote: Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. As long as 2.1.7 seems good, I would like to do a vote on making it a Beta. I have temporary fixed the load balancer with the ugly hack. What is missing is the setup for the method finder function. Seems Jim committed that but never implemented the actual setup for the function pointer itself. With my hack the load balancer at least does not core dump, but it is a regression from previous implementation, because right now the by-requests method is used. Jim, if you can either fix that or revert your patch we'll be able to release the 2.1.7. Regards, Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Paul Querna wrote: Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. As long as 2.1.7 seems good, I would like to do a vote on making it a Beta. I have temporary fixed the load balancer with the ugly hack. What is missing is the setup for the method finder function. Seems Jim committed that but never implemented the actual setup for the function pointer itself. With my hack the load balancer at least does not core dump, but it is a regression from previous implementation, because right now the by-requests method is used. Jim, if you can either fix that or revert your patch we'll be able to release the 2.1.7. Regards, Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Paul Querna wrote: Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. As long as 2.1.7 seems good, I would like to do a vote on making it a Beta. OK. I have fixed the mod_setenvif build for WIN32. But... mod_proxy_balancer is core dumping (accessing NULL address). I'll try to fix that by today evening, but not sure if I'll succeed. I'm on the vacation starting tomorrow, so someone will need to check that before release. There has been lots of commits for various methods, etc... Hope the Jim will know better. BalancerMember http://localhost:8081 # BalancerMember ajp://localhost:7009 # BalancerMember ajp://localhost:8009 # BalancerMember ajp://localhost:9009 ProxyPass /servlets-examples balancer://cluster/servlets-examples Is core dumping, and the debug shows only the disassembly option. So, -1 for the tag unless resolved. Regards, Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Paul Querna wrote: Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. -- Build started: Project: mod_setenvif, Configuration: Release Win32 -- Creating Version Resource Compiling... mod_setenvif.c mod_setenvif.c(97) : fatal error C1083: Cannot open include file: 'mod_ssl.h': No such file or directory Also, the InstallBin is failing because: copy modules\metadata\Release\mod_setenvif.so "C:\W\apache\head\modules" <.y The system cannot find the file specified. NMAKE : fatal error U1077: 'copy' : return code '0x1' I'll see if I can fix that. Regards, Mladen.
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 06:28:56PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > At 03:36 AM 8/18/2005, Joe Orton wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:43:01PM -0700, Paul Querna wrote: > >> Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from > >> trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to > >> include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. > > > >Sounds great. Can you exclude the mod_setenvif OID() changes? I don't > >think they are ready for release. > > Unless you trip the feature deliberately, this won't interfere > with anyone using the current trunk, would it? > > Yes, the feature might be 'experimental', but I don't think > it's harmful. Am I mistaken? Just that a 2.1.x beta release should resemble the final 2.2.0 interface as closely as possible, and this isn't going to make it to 2.2.0 as-is... joe
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > At 12:43 AM 8/18/2005, Paul Querna wrote: > >>Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from >>trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to >>include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. > > > Note you can't tag the recent commit to mod_dir, there > is a veto on the floor. Yes, I disagree to the said veto, and I hope to have an alternative available before I do this. (If not, I agree completely and will omit that change from the branch, or revert trunk.) >>As long as 2.1.7 seems good, I would like to do a vote on making it a Beta. > > > Our procedure (I forget you are relatively speaking a bit > new to this role :-) is to let this ride three days on > our own infrastructure, eating our own dogfood, so to speak. Sure, if someone in Infrastructure is willing and has the time to set it up. I don't have the karma to do it myself. > If that doesn't keel over I'll support the vote to go beta. > This is not quite GA, IMHO, but getting quite close. > > FYI you can't trash branches willy nilly, which is why I had > warned you not to branch. You must now backport each change > you wish to introduce to 2.2 from trunk/. Not R-T-C, of > course, but C-T-R. Sorry, you dug the hole, now climb out. > Actually, after consulting Karl Fogel(svn-developer) on IRC, he says that re-creating the branch will not cause a problem with people's working copies, as long as both branches have the same origin, which they will. -Paul
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'ers... As Paul mentions below, on Friday (probably 1 a.m. ;-) he will tag 2.1.7. This is just a reminder to our most excellent doco team that, once ack'ed - this becomes 2.1 beta, and then... (drum roll please...) 2.2 GA(!) So if you had changes to catch up with 2.1 that perhaps have been sitting in your local checkouts, now is an excellent time to commit the docs improvements. Each release, we state "v x.x is the best available version of Apache", and certainly the docs@ team has proven this! When 2.2 final (not beta, not alpha) drops, we certainly all want this to be true not only of the code, but also of the accompanying documentation! And I trust you will make it so. Yours, Bill p.s. it's been a while - have I told you all lately that you rock?!? :) At 12:43 AM 8/18/2005, Paul Querna wrote: >Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from >trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to >include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. > >As long as 2.1.7 seems good, I would like to do a vote on making it a Beta. > >Thanks, > >-Paul
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
At 12:43 AM 8/18/2005, Paul Querna wrote: >Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from >trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to >include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. Note you can't tag the recent commit to mod_dir, there is a veto on the floor. >As long as 2.1.7 seems good, I would like to do a vote on making it a Beta. Our procedure (I forget you are relatively speaking a bit new to this role :-) is to let this ride three days on our own infrastructure, eating our own dogfood, so to speak. If that doesn't keel over I'll support the vote to go beta. This is not quite GA, IMHO, but getting quite close. FYI you can't trash branches willy nilly, which is why I had warned you not to branch. You must now backport each change you wish to introduce to 2.2 from trunk/. Not R-T-C, of course, but C-T-R. Sorry, you dug the hole, now climb out. Trashing a branch means that one of your co-committers with a checkout is going to be very, very borked when they svn up. Just don't do it. Bill
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
At 03:36 AM 8/18/2005, Joe Orton wrote: >On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:43:01PM -0700, Paul Querna wrote: >> Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from >> trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to >> include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. > >Sounds great. Can you exclude the mod_setenvif OID() changes? I don't >think they are ready for release. Unless you trip the feature deliberately, this won't interfere with anyone using the current trunk, would it? Yes, the feature might be 'experimental', but I don't think it's harmful. Am I mistaken? Bill
Re: Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:43:01PM -0700, Paul Querna wrote: > Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from > trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to > include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. Sounds great. Can you exclude the mod_setenvif OID() changes? I don't think they are ready for release. mod_setenvif.c @ rev 153384 was the last good one. joe
Rolling 2.1.7 On Friday
Just a heads up, I am planning to RM and tag 2.1.7 (and re-branch from trunk the 2.2.x branch) on Friday or Saturday this week. I intend to include APR and APR-Util 1.2.1 with this release. As long as 2.1.7 seems good, I would like to do a vote on making it a Beta. Thanks, -Paul
