Re: nginx exception request
Hello! I've made on-line comments, links, responses, questions, concerns, etc. below. Apologies for the delay in my response, but as July 4th was a holiday in the US, and I was out of town away from my email. On 07/03/2015 04:41 AM, Dave Walker wrote: > On 30 June 2015 at 15:55, Thomas Ward wrote: >> On 06/30/2015 06:08 AM, Robie Basak wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:50:05AM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: Please can we agree on feature freeze and SRU policy exceptions so that we can execute option A, or otherwise discuss alternatives? >>> Any thoughts please? Although we'd not execute on any exception until >>> 2016, Thomas needs to know now whether to merge 1.9 from Debian or >>> diverge on 1.8 for Wily. >> There is also another option that is likely less desirable than the >> other aforementioned options in the previous emails in this chain by >> Robie: We (or rather, I) could do absolutely nothing for Wily, and we >> can ultimately just deal with this closer to 16.04, such that we can >> have this discussion for a longer period of time. >> >> By doing nothing, 1.6.x will remain in Ubuntu for the duration of Wily. >> Features from 1.7.x which are now present in 1.8.x (nginx stable) will >> not exist in Ubuntu Wily, and even newer features (and to my chagrin, >> the "Disable SSLv3 By Default" change at the source code level) from >> 1.9.x will not exist in Ubuntu Wily either. This option allows us on >> the Server Team, and myself, to not have to immediately worry about >> merging, while users who want the newer features in 1.8.x and 1.9.x can >> simply use the already-existing NGINX PPAs that I maintain which package >> both NGINX versions for all supported Ubuntu releases. >> >> While input from the Release team is sought for Wily, so we can try and >> have less of a merge delta by 16.04, we can theoretically do nothing now >> for Wily, and then go with 1.9.x in 16.04, and then focus on the one-off >> policy exceptions or potential other alternatives then, rather than >> require the release team's input immediately. However, I believe it is >> a better option to consider 1.8.x or 1.9.x now for Wily rather than do >> nothing. >> > Hi, > > Considering there is effort to plan ahead for future releases and > potential SRU/MRE extraordinary updates, I quite think this requires > input from the technical-board. Rather than cross-posting this thread > to there, might I suggest a parallel thread is started there? > > My thought is that Nginx previously hasn't received as much love in > Ubuntu as Apache, so doing as much as possible to align with Debian > support is probably preferential. Although, teward seems to have been > doing a sustained effort at pushing it in Ubuntu. > > Perhaps it would be useful to look at the Nginx PPA statistics, to try > and gauge how many people are using it outside of the primary > archives? - teward, could you do an analysis on this? This produces > some nice charts - http://wpitchoune.net/blog/ppastats/ Well, I think we'll have a problem here. Launchpad and that tool don't get along, since the tool pulls *all* the data at once, which causes some issues to the API, in that it tries to get everything in one hit. That tool also doesn't appear very customizable to pull smaller chunks, and I know for a fact that wgrant was commenting "you'll want to tweak the code that you're using" (to quote him) when I was asking about the errors I'm seeing from Launchpad (in the #launchpad channel on freenode). I'm not fluent enough with pure C code to tweak this to achieve that goal of tweaking it, though. Do you have another tool on-hand that does the same general thing, Dave? I'm a little bit too busy with work the next few months to write a custom Python script myself with smaller data chunks to do this... > Nginx seems to have a pretty reliable upstream reputation, mixed with > how near the scheduled release is to the next LTS and common for the > prior LTS to be used until the next point - I would be confident in > putting weight behind this idea, providing that: > - LTS releases with the latest snapshot from hg upstream, and plan to > minimal SRU to tagged release (which there is prior art of) Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, I'm hesitant to pull the latest hg snapshot (at that time) in this case. The reason being there may be incomplete features there in the hg snapshot, with even more bugs than it may already have due to it being an in-development branch. I'd be more comfortable with LTS having the latest-tagged-release prior to 1.10.x from the hg repository (or nginx.org tarballs) rather than pulling incomplete-features code from the hg repository. If it is however preferable to pull that snapshot, I'll do it, but only if the TB and/or a substantial amount of this opinion being held by the Release Team stand by that opinion. Provided that we pull the latest changes in the packaging (to account for potential FTBFS issues and conflicting-configuration is
Re: nginx exception request
On 30 June 2015 at 15:55, Thomas Ward wrote: > On 06/30/2015 06:08 AM, Robie Basak wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:50:05AM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: >>> Please can we agree on feature freeze and SRU policy exceptions so that >>> we can execute option A, or otherwise discuss alternatives? >> >> Any thoughts please? Although we'd not execute on any exception until >> 2016, Thomas needs to know now whether to merge 1.9 from Debian or >> diverge on 1.8 for Wily. > There is also another option that is likely less desirable than the > other aforementioned options in the previous emails in this chain by > Robie: We (or rather, I) could do absolutely nothing for Wily, and we > can ultimately just deal with this closer to 16.04, such that we can > have this discussion for a longer period of time. > > By doing nothing, 1.6.x will remain in Ubuntu for the duration of Wily. > Features from 1.7.x which are now present in 1.8.x (nginx stable) will > not exist in Ubuntu Wily, and even newer features (and to my chagrin, > the "Disable SSLv3 By Default" change at the source code level) from > 1.9.x will not exist in Ubuntu Wily either. This option allows us on > the Server Team, and myself, to not have to immediately worry about > merging, while users who want the newer features in 1.8.x and 1.9.x can > simply use the already-existing NGINX PPAs that I maintain which package > both NGINX versions for all supported Ubuntu releases. > > While input from the Release team is sought for Wily, so we can try and > have less of a merge delta by 16.04, we can theoretically do nothing now > for Wily, and then go with 1.9.x in 16.04, and then focus on the one-off > policy exceptions or potential other alternatives then, rather than > require the release team's input immediately. However, I believe it is > a better option to consider 1.8.x or 1.9.x now for Wily rather than do > nothing. > Hi, Considering there is effort to plan ahead for future releases and potential SRU/MRE extraordinary updates, I quite think this requires input from the technical-board. Rather than cross-posting this thread to there, might I suggest a parallel thread is started there? My thought is that Nginx previously hasn't received as much love in Ubuntu as Apache, so doing as much as possible to align with Debian support is probably preferential. Although, teward seems to have been doing a sustained effort at pushing it in Ubuntu. Perhaps it would be useful to look at the Nginx PPA statistics, to try and gauge how many people are using it outside of the primary archives? - teward, could you do an analysis on this? This produces some nice charts - http://wpitchoune.net/blog/ppastats/ Nginx seems to have a pretty reliable upstream reputation, mixed with how near the scheduled release is to the next LTS and common for the prior LTS to be used until the next point - I would be confident in putting weight behind this idea, providing that: - LTS releases with the latest snapshot from hg upstream, and plan to minimal SRU to tagged release (which there is prior art of) - Config files do not change - Upgrade is well tested (old LTS->new LTS, old Nginx LTS -> new Nginx LTS & Wily->New LTS) If this plan is done, then it makes sense to track 1.9.x series for Wily and 1.10 for next LTS. However, this really does require input from the TB and commitment from teward and/or the server team to follow through. Thanks -- Kind Regards, Dave Walker -- Kind Regards, Dave Walker -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: nginx exception request
On 06/30/2015 06:08 AM, Robie Basak wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:50:05AM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: >> Please can we agree on feature freeze and SRU policy exceptions so that >> we can execute option A, or otherwise discuss alternatives? > > Any thoughts please? Although we'd not execute on any exception until > 2016, Thomas needs to know now whether to merge 1.9 from Debian or > diverge on 1.8 for Wily. There is also another option that is likely less desirable than the other aforementioned options in the previous emails in this chain by Robie: We (or rather, I) could do absolutely nothing for Wily, and we can ultimately just deal with this closer to 16.04, such that we can have this discussion for a longer period of time. By doing nothing, 1.6.x will remain in Ubuntu for the duration of Wily. Features from 1.7.x which are now present in 1.8.x (nginx stable) will not exist in Ubuntu Wily, and even newer features (and to my chagrin, the "Disable SSLv3 By Default" change at the source code level) from 1.9.x will not exist in Ubuntu Wily either. This option allows us on the Server Team, and myself, to not have to immediately worry about merging, while users who want the newer features in 1.8.x and 1.9.x can simply use the already-existing NGINX PPAs that I maintain which package both NGINX versions for all supported Ubuntu releases. While input from the Release team is sought for Wily, so we can try and have less of a merge delta by 16.04, we can theoretically do nothing now for Wily, and then go with 1.9.x in 16.04, and then focus on the one-off policy exceptions or potential other alternatives then, rather than require the release team's input immediately. However, I believe it is a better option to consider 1.8.x or 1.9.x now for Wily rather than do nothing. -- Thomas Ward -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: nginx exception request
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:50:05AM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: > Please can we agree on feature freeze and SRU policy exceptions so that > we can execute option A, or otherwise discuss alternatives? Any thoughts please? Although we'd not execute on any exception until 2016, Thomas needs to know now whether to merge 1.9 from Debian or diverge on 1.8 for Wily. signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
nginx exception request
Dear Release Team, We (server team) would like to discuss some kind of one-off feature freeze and/or SRU exception for nginx that we expect to want to land either after feature freeze for X or shortly after it is released. I think the situation is similar to what we do for Openstack - that we expect an upstream final release around the time of our own release, so we want to follow upstream closely with updates after our own feature freeze and possibly shortly after our own release. However, in nginx's case there is no upstream feature freeze until their actual final "release" as they start their 1.10 series, so it is possible that we will end up introducing new features during X feature freeze or even shortly after X is released. Previous discussions: ubuntu-server ML[1] ubuntu-server IRC meeting[2] Please note that nginx use an odd-development/even-stable version numbering scheme which I think is quite similar to the old Linux versioning scheme. 1.9 (development/"mainline") has recently opened, and Debian are currently following 1.9 in unstable. 1.10 (stable) is expected in April 2016. Option A: we think that what we want to do in Ubuntu is merge 1.9 from Debian, follow it through while X is in development, and move to 1.10 in X (via x-updates if necessary) as soon as 1.10 is released in April 2016. This will result in LTS users on X getting the upstream nginx stable branch. However, this may involve some late or post-release feature bumps in X that violate the usual feature freeze and SRU policies. Option B: the alternative would be to diverge from Debian, maintain 1.8 (the current nginx stable version as of this message) directly from upstream, and release X with 1.8. However this will result in limited support from upstream as they will drop maintenance for the 1.8 series almost immediately as 1.10 is opened around the same time as X is released, and users will end up with a particularly old nginx for the LTS duration. If we want to execute option B, then ideally we need to decide this now so that we don't have to regress users back from 1.9 to 1.8 in future. We think option A fits better with the needs of nginx users, but welcome further discussion. Please can we agree on feature freeze and SRU policy exceptions so that we can execute option A, or otherwise discuss alternatives? Thanks, Robie Basak and Thomas Ward Ubuntu Server Team [1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2015-June/007072.html [2] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2015/06/16/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t16:20 signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
