Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On 12/15/2011 8:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2011, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> On 12/14/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the >>> main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't >>> have any "real" concept of Release Candidates. >> >> I like it that way, and see no reason to change, especially not now >> that we are approaching such a significant milestone. If 2.4.0 didn't >> work, burn it and move on to 2.4.1. We certainly can call 2.4.0 an >> alpha, beta or GA release. >> >> -0.9 on adopting an RC approach. We do this for our day jobs. That >> isn't the point of ASF methodology. > > So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another > beta or just drop 2.4.0? Either/both. My point was that 2.4.0 can follow the usual voting pattern of Cast your vote that 2.4.0 is [ ] Alpha [ ] Beta [ ] GA. We don't need five RC's of 2.4.0 before a real 2.4.0. If there are 2.4.0 - .4 which all amount to alpha/beta approval before 2.4.5 is GA, there is nothing wrong with continuing in our usual pattern.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
- Original Message - > > On Dec 15, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another > > beta or just drop 2.4.0? > > > > FWIW, my plan, without a clear RC charter, is to do a final > 2.3.x beta (from the httpd-2.4 branch) and then a GA. > > IMO, there have been too many significant and wide-touching > changes to warrant a GA release at this time. +1 -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On Dec 15, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another > beta or just drop 2.4.0? > FWIW, my plan, without a clear RC charter, is to do a final 2.3.x beta (from the httpd-2.4 branch) and then a GA. IMO, there have been too many significant and wide-touching changes to warrant a GA release at this time.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On Dec 14, 2011, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 12/14/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the >> main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't >> have any "real" concept of Release Candidates. > > I like it that way, and see no reason to change, especially not now > that we are approaching such a significant milestone. If 2.4.0 didn't > work, burn it and move on to 2.4.1. We certainly can call 2.4.0 an > alpha, beta or GA release. > > -0.9 on adopting an RC approach. We do this for our day jobs. That > isn't the point of ASF methodology. > So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another beta or just drop 2.4.0?
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On 12/14/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the > main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't > have any "real" concept of Release Candidates. I like it that way, and see no reason to change, especially not now that we are approaching such a significant milestone. If 2.4.0 didn't work, burn it and move on to 2.4.1. We certainly can call 2.4.0 an alpha, beta or GA release. -0.9 on adopting an RC approach. We do this for our day jobs. That isn't the point of ASF methodology.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
This will be done tomorrow: Thurs 12/15. On Dec 11, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are > close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0... > > My plan is to T&R sometime this week... >
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Am 14.12.2011 13:09, schrieb Jim Jagielski: Okey dokey... Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't have any "real" concept of Release Candidates. maybe time to add one? ;-) I'm assuming we can simply tag as 2.4.0-RC1 but what about the MMN and the below: #define AP_SERVER_MAJORVERSION_NUMBER 2 #define AP_SERVER_MINORVERSION_NUMBER 4 #define AP_SERVER_PATCHLEVEL_NUMBER 0 #define AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN1 /* Synchronize the above with docs/manual/style/version.ent */ #if AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN #define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING "-dev" #else #define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING "" #endif I propose that for the RCs, we keep AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN as '1'... When we go for GA, we then, and only then, change to '0' and retag as 2.4.0. OK? what about changing the above to: #if AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN && !defined(AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING) and then adding a line in configure to add -DAP_SERVER_ADD_STRING="-rc1" ? this way the server would carry out the -rc1 and it would be possible to differ between rc1, rc2, ... (and btw. other add strings like svn revisions -r123456789 would then also be easily possible ...) Gün.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Okey dokey... Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't have any "real" concept of Release Candidates. I'm assuming we can simply tag as 2.4.0-RC1 but what about the MMN and the below: #define AP_SERVER_MAJORVERSION_NUMBER 2 #define AP_SERVER_MINORVERSION_NUMBER 4 #define AP_SERVER_PATCHLEVEL_NUMBER 0 #define AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN1 /* Synchronize the above with docs/manual/style/version.ent */ #if AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN #define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING "-dev" #else #define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING "" #endif I propose that for the RCs, we keep AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN as '1'... When we go for GA, we then, and only then, change to '0' and retag as 2.4.0. OK?
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are > close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0... > > My plan is to T&R sometime this week... +1, let's do it. 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: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On Sunday 11 December 2011, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 11 Dec 2011, at 15:01, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are > > close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0... > > > > My plan is to T&R sometime this week... > > +1. BTW, is there any reason why r1210261 (mod_slotmem_shm conf syntax) has not been backported yet? Apart from that, +1.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:00 PM, zhiguo zhao wrote: >> mod_lua document is not match with source code. >> A lot of instruction removed or added. > > I don't personally see this as a release blocker. The doc says it's > experimental, and what's there largely works (AFAIK) > > Specific shortcomings in bugzilla would be helpful. > +1… As RM I don't consider this a blocker.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:00 PM, zhiguo zhao wrote: > mod_lua document is not match with source code. > A lot of instruction removed or added. I don't personally see this as a release blocker. The doc says it's experimental, and what's there largely works (AFAIK) Specific shortcomings in bugzilla would be helpful.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
mod_lua document is not match with source code. A lot of instruction removed or added. 2011/12/12 Eric Covener > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM, zhiguo zhao wrote: > > -1 > > > > I think document is not finished. > > Which documents specifically? I think we'll settle for a long way > from "finished" for documentation, like "adequate". >
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM, zhiguo zhao wrote: > -1 > > I think document is not finished. Which documents specifically? I think we'll settle for a long way from "finished" for documentation, like "adequate".
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
-1 I think document is not finished. 2011/12/12 Graham Leggett > On 11 Dec 2011, at 15:01, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are > > close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0... > > > > My plan is to T&R sometime this week... > > +1. > > Regards, > Graham > -- > >
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
On 11 Dec 2011, at 15:01, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are > close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0... > > My plan is to T&R sometime this week... +1. Regards, Graham --
Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0... My plan is to T&R sometime this week...
