On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> no, you are just a hypocrite trying to forbid others voice their opinion in
> their weay but not follow your own rules to always say critics nice and
> lovely and so you have no point to play internet police on mailing lists any
> longer
I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKGjOE_7bYI
On 01/27/2017 04:21 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Nick Edwards
> wrote:
>> You need some edumacation
>
> We're well aware of his notoriety and their relationship. I
> personally don't care about motives or backstory for off-topic
> shit-posting.
>
+1
Regards
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Nick Edwards wrote:
> You need some edumacation
We're well aware of his notoriety and their relationship. I
personally don't care about motives or backstory for off-topic
shit-posting.
You need some edumacation, I've avoided getting involved in these comments
but I think this has to be said.
Reindl is a long time well known troll, a highly caustic and abusive one,
he's been kicked off more industry mailing lists than you've probably had
hot dinners for it, some other lists, he's
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> I never object to any sensible opinion.
>
> Harry, you were warned never to reply or respond to me, because you know
> what happens if you do, i'll assume you were off your meds again when you
> clicked reply and forgot.
>
You both need to kee
On 24/01/2017 20:22, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 23.01.2017 um 02:52 schrieb Noel Butler:
>
>> Perhaps the only person who wont bend over and take it up the arse like
>> some people here expect, if I have an opinion, i'll voice it
>
> no, you are just a hypocrite trying to forbid others voice the
On 23/01/2017 19:14, Stefan Eissing wrote:
> Am 23.01.2017 um 02:52 schrieb Noel Butler :
>
> On 20/01/2017 07:45, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> On 01/19/2017 12:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote: Frequent releases set off alarms
> in system admins minds, frequent
> releases give the view of unstable/unreli
On 24/01/2017 13:58, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the only person who wont bend over and take it up the arse like some
>> people here expect, if I have an opinion, i'll voice it
>
> Noel, your immediately prior post was an interest
Am 23.01.2017 um 02:52 schrieb Noel Butler:
Perhaps the only person who wont bend over and take it up the arse like
some people here expect, if I have an opinion, i'll voice it
no, you are just a hypocrite trying to forbid others voice their opinion
in their weay but not follow your own rules
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> Perhaps the only person who wont bend over and take it up the arse like
> some people here expect, if I have an opinion, i'll voice it
>
Noel, your immediately prior post was an interesting example, although I
fail
to see how that particular
> Am 23.01.2017 um 02:52 schrieb Noel Butler :
>
> On 20/01/2017 07:45, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
>> On 01/19/2017 12:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>>> Frequent releases set off alarms in system admins minds, frequent
>>> releases give the view of unstable/unreliable software, and that is the
>>> larg
On 20/01/2017 07:45, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 01/19/2017 12:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
>> Frequent releases set off alarms in system admins minds, frequent
>> releases give the view of unstable/unreliable software, and that is the
>> largest cause of movement to an alternative.
>
> So, the l
On 20/01/2017 07:07, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 20/01/2017 05:54, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> posts, I don't think you will find a single post where I suggested
> that there is an issue with the frequency of releases, but please
> feel f
On 01/19/2017 12:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Frequent releases set off alarms in system admins minds, frequent
releases give the view of unstable/unreliable software, and that is the
largest cause of movement to an alternative.
So, the last [1] two [2] times you've pushed this viewpoint, you've b
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Here's the real issue, as I see it. If there have been "recent
> breakages" it is not due to the release process, but rather
> the *testing* process. That is, not enough people testing
> 2.4-HEAD until we actually get close to a release. Th
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 20/01/2017 05:54, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>> posts, I don't think you will find a single post where I suggested
>> that there is an issue with the frequency of releases, but please
>> feel free.
>
> I believe that was me :)
>
>> You've
On 20/01/2017 05:54, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> posts, I don't think you will find a single post where I suggested
> that there is an issue with the frequency of releases, but please
> feel free.
I believe that was me :)
> You've put restated the argument again this month that if we
> don't enh
There is no such thing as "Jim's Releases" or "Bill's
Releases". The PMC votes on them and the release is
an action of the PMC. It's a PMC release.
As for why I do it: It's a chore. Mostly "thankless" due
to the drama one needs to endure and the fact that
you will be assured that at least someone
> On Jan 19, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> I don't agree with everything Bill is saying here, but to be fair to him: if
> people are backporting new features and higher-risk changes to 2.4.x at the
> same time an RM is trying to coordinate a bugfix-only release, I would
> imagin
On 01/19/2017 07:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
You seem to be ignoring the times when bug-fixes, and regression-fix-only
patches themselves have resulted in regressions.
Sure, that does (and will continue to) happen. Every code change carries
some risk, and no test suite is 100% perfect, but I d
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 8:35 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr
>> wrote:
>>> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26
>>> that
>>> finally proves to be a wor
You seem to be ignoring the times when bug-fixes, and regression-fix-only
patches themselves have resulted in regressions. Or when
bug-fixes themselves devolve into grand-scale refactoring
which greatly introduce the very real probability of regressions.
Handling regressions seems independent from
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
>
> It will surprise no one that I like to release more often. OTOH I do
> not like to break things.
>
> The current release model clearly does not work well, in my limited
> experience over that last 15 months. Why?
>
> httpd is a rich produc
> On Jan 18, 2017, at 8:35 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26
>> that
>> finally proves to be a workable upgrade for all httpd users?
>
> It sounds reasonable t
> Am 19.01.2017 um 10:08 schrieb Reindl Harald :
> Am 19.01.2017 um 08:22 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
>> Distros seem to have realized the problem long ago and make their own httpd
>> versions. First time I realized my "httpd 2.4.7" is not the 2.4.7 release
>> was a WTF moment.
>
> no, that applies
Am 19.01.2017 um 08:22 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
Distros seem to have realized the problem long ago and make their own httpd versions.
First time I realized my "httpd 2.4.7" is not the 2.4.7 release was a WTF
moment.
no, that applies to LTS distros and in that case of nearly any piece of
sof
> Am 19.01.2017 um 06:34 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr
>>> wrote:
>>> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26
>>> that
>>> finally proves to be a
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26
>> that
>> finally proves to be a workable upgrade for all httpd users?
>
> It sounds reasonable to m
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26
> that
> finally proves to be a workable upgrade for all httpd users?
It sounds reasonable to me, but I think it's a bit of an oversell --
It's just going to be
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 03 Jan 2017, at 2:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>> So I'd like to know, in light of a perpetual chain of (often build and/or
>> run-time breaking regression) enhancements, if there is support for a
>> 2.4.24.x release chain during t
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 01/04/2017 11:55 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>
>> On 04 Jan 2017, at 8:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>>
>>> So, there's 3k of the 20k. And remember, my point was that we can
>>> fix what I call "dead code" with good old fashioned legwork.
On 01/04/2017 11:55 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 04 Jan 2017, at 8:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
So, there's 3k of the 20k. And remember, my point was that we can
fix what I call "dead code" with good old fashioned legwork. I
don't advocate trashing trunk, and I don't think having "dead code"
is
On 04 Jan 2017, at 8:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> Can you give us an example of this dead code?
>
> In modules/ alone (I haven't looked at server/ yet, and don't plan to today),
> after ignoring build-related files and stripping the svn-diff context, there
> are twenty *thousand* lines of d
To your questions of history;
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
> 3) mod_apreq2
>
> 1000 lines, added in 2011, no meaningful code changes since addition, no
> tests, no documented public release of libapreq2 since 2010. (It does have
> public documentation. And it seems lik
On 01/04/2017 12:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code in
trunk.
Can you give us an example of this dead code?
In modules/ alone (I haven't looked at server/ yet, and don'
On 01/04/2017 12:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code in
trunk.
Can you give us an example of this dead code?
I'm working to answer this question now. My original asserti
On 01/04/2017 08:42 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
That’s not dead code, that’s just the difference between v2.4 and trunk.
So long as the project chooses not to release it, it sits in a repository DoA.
To a certain extent we'll have to do
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 04 Jan 2017, at 3:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>>> Can you give us an example of this dead code?
>>
>> svn diff --ignore-properties --no-diff-deleted -x --ignore-all-space
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.
On 04 Jan 2017, at 3:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>> Can you give us an example of this dead code?
>
> svn diff --ignore-properties --no-diff-deleted -x --ignore-all-space
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
>> I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code
>> in trunk.
>
> Can you give us an example of this dead code?
svn diff --ignore-properties --no-diff-delet
> On Jan 4, 2017, at 3:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>
>> I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code
>> in trunk.
>
> Can you give us an example of this dead code?
>
I tend to see some of the code relate
On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code
> in trunk.
Can you give us an example of this dead code?
Regards,
Graham
—
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On 01/03/2017 06:07 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
If trunk/ is a dead fork, it may be time for httpd to admit this, trash
it and re-fork trunk from 2.4.x branch.
I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead
code in trunk. The CTR policy contributes to that, IMO, but we
On 01/02/2017 04:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
So far, discussions are polarized on a single axis...
East: Let's work on 3.0; whatever is going on in 2.4 won't distract me,
I won't spend time reviewing enhancements, because 3.0 is the goal.
West: Let's keep the energy going on 2.4 enhancement
Bill, your Email client is messed-up again, as related to
how it handles copy/pasted text in replies.
> On Jan 3, 2017, at 9:07 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2017 02:19, "Graham Leggett" wrote:
>
> > Can you clarify the problem you’re trying to solve?
> >
> > v3.0 and v2.6 are ju
>Nobody built on Windows prior to the release so
>we had a re-roll.
Please contact me before a release, so I can test.
Steffen AL
--- Begin Message
Group: gmane.comp.apache.devel
MsgID:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>So I'd like to know,
On 03 Jan 2017, at 4:07 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Can you clarify the problem you’re trying to solve?
>
> v3.0 and v2.6 are just numbers. For modest changes, we move to v2.6. For a
> very large architecture change (for example, the addition of filters in v1.x
> to v2.x), we move to 3.0.
>
On Jan 3, 2017 02:19, "Graham Leggett" wrote:
Can you clarify the problem you’re trying to solve?
v3.0 and v2.6 are just numbers. For modest changes, we move to v2.6. For a
very large architecture change (for example, the addition of filters in
v1.x to v2.x), we move to 3.0.
Is there a very la
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> So I'd like to know, in light of a perpetual chain of (often build and/or
> run-time breaking regression) enhancements, if there is support for a
> 2.4.24.x release chain during the 3.0 transition? And support for
> potentially 3x backport
> On Jan 2, 2017, at 7:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> So far, discussions are polarized on a single axis...
>
> East: Let's work on 3.0; whatever is going on in 2.4 won't distract me, I
> won't spend time reviewing enhancements, because 3.0 is the goal.
>
> West: Let's keep the energy go
On 03 Jan 2017, at 2:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> So far, discussions are polarized on a single axis...
>
> East: Let's work on 3.0; whatever is going on in 2.4 won't distract me, I
> won't spend time reviewing enhancements, because 3.0 is the goal.
>
> West: Let's keep the energy going o
So far, discussions are polarized on a single axis...
East: Let's work on 3.0; whatever is going on in 2.4 won't distract me, I
won't spend time reviewing enhancements, because 3.0 is the goal.
West: Let's keep the energy going on 2.4 enhancements, I won't spend time
on 3.0 usability because it i
53 matches
Mail list logo
