Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Will apreq 2.18 still be released? On 16/02/2024 09:44, Joe Orton wrote: Joe, you've been warned before to moderate your language. This ends now. It is completely unacceptable to insult other members of the community like this one time, let alone repeatedly. It is unproductive, unprofessional,

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Joe, you've been warned before to moderate your language. This ends now. It is completely unacceptable to insult other members of the community like this one time, let alone repeatedly. It is unproductive, unprofessional, and in violation of the ASF code of conduct. I've taken the decision as

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

The mediocre talent pool in this community doesn’t mind the code duplication of having many different form data parsers inside a common code base because, really, collaboration and common cause is not your thing. So live it up with the user base while they ponder your architectural rationales

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Stupid shit like this is everyone's problem: https://www.tenable.com/plugins/nessus/161454 Hating me for solving it cleanly is par for the course for the current httpd committer community. On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 8:41 PM Joe Schaefer wrote: > Back in the day, httpd was a celebrated

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Back in the day, httpd was a celebrated integration point for dozens of apache projects. Literally the flagship of the organization. It's also why people were judicious about what to include in core, versus codebases remaining elsewhere in the org as third party modules. Of course at this point,

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

The proof is in the pudding, as it were. There's prima facia evidence in this very thread that he lied about ever running the test suite for apreq, because Joe wouldn't have had to patch it for him 8 months later had he ever bothered in the first place. But when everyone around you is no better

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

> And because you are such a prima donna Yann Yann is an amazing programmer and super easy to work with. Maybe it's hard to tell from the backseat.

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

The nightmare scenario is when you try to support HTTP/3 when you can’t even support an HTML form parser. Have an appropriate amount of fun. Popcorn is popping. Joe Schaefer, Ph.D. Orion - The Enterprise Jamstack Wiki

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

The reason the QA around httpd is so lousy lately is because none of you actually dogfood the software professionally, because no Fortune 500 employer would be caught dead running httpd over nginx in the cloud. That historically lackadaisical approach to CI has no business persisting now that you

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Keep your tone policing off list wise guy. If you have something of substance to offer to your colleagues other than defensive posturing, let’s have it. Like all these vacuous bug reports missing from the issue tracker about apreq, that you rumor mongers like to scare people with. Joe Schaefer,

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 5:47 PM Joe Schaefer wrote: > Nobody gives a flying f what you released from trunk. I personally will be > dead and buried before you release httpd 3.0. So like you I don’t give a > damned what you do with it. > > I just want the warfare against existing libapreq2 users

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Nobody gives a flying f what you released from trunk. I personally will be dead and buried before you release httpd 3.0. So like you I don’t give a damned what you do with it. I just want the warfare against existing libapreq2 users to cease and desist. If there are known vulnerabilities in the

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 11:57 PM Joe Schaefer wrote: > Twenty years in core, with one bug to fix. > And you couldn’t even manage without three different botched releases. > I think you are mixing up apreq and httpd releases here. AIUI the apreq stuff in the core of httpd-trunk has only ever

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Let's be honest for once Yann. You came up with this hairbrained patch over 2 years ago right here: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1895107 Yet the first time anyone actually ran the unit tests for apreq was during the 2.17 release process **8 months later**. And because you are

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

You mean the 2.17 release, where Joe Orton actually patched the test suite out of your coercion? Great engineering. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1903489 Joe Schaefer, Ph.D. Orion - The Enterprise Jamstack Wiki

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 5:12 AM Joe Schaefer wrote: > > I gave you beta males an entire year His Alpha Most Serene Highness is too kind to us.. > to find an excuse for completely boning the modperl user community for no > good reason, _You_ did that (boning the modperl user community), by

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Twenty years in core, with one bug to fix. And you couldn’t even manage without three different botched releases. Please, for the love of its users, stop fixing it. Joe Schaefer, Ph.D. Orion - The Enterprise Jamstack Wiki

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Look Eric, I gave you beta males an entire year to find an excuse for completely boning the modperl user community for no good reason, other than your precious egos were harmed while going though the motions for the past ten years with this project. So far, the only thing to come of putting

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

Bite me Eric. Next? Joe Schaefer, Ph.D. Orion - The Enterprise Jamstack Wiki 954.253.3732 On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 10:25 PM Eric Covener wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 1:45 PM Joe Schaefer wrote: > > > >

Re: release apreq 2.18 and mothball the project

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 1:45 PM Joe Schaefer wrote: > > Assuming Google hasn't found any more fuzzing vulnerabilities with apreq, we > should call the subproject done after releasing it, rolling any new efforts > into httpd's internal copy of the codebase for the next major release of > httpd.