On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> One more thing to point out that I didn't explicitly say in the previous
> message is that this suggestion implies the release branch regularly gets cut
> from trunk (rather than growing and diverging on its own).
On April 23, 2018 11:30:07 AM CDT, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Ruggeri
>wrote:
>>
>> The more I think about it, the more I *really* like a semver-ish
>> approach where major represents the ABI that will not be
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> The more I think about it, the more I *really* like a semver-ish
> approach where major represents the ABI that will not be broken, minor
> represents the feature set (for backwards compatibility) and patch
>
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Daniel Ruggeri
wrote:
> Yeah - I think my main concern is really just around the backporting
> process with STATUS and how that will have issues scaling across many
> branches. Further, as each branch deviates, it becomes more of a
>
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Unhelpful for whom? If we ship the latest, secure config from the single
> release branch, we wouldn't be encumbered by having to use tricks for fixes.
I think we're getting off into the weeds a bit here. My belief
On 19 Apr 2018, at 5:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> With all this in mind, should we try to set things up so that the
> next release cycle uses the concept of RCs?
>
> If so, and if people like, I can come up with a baseline
> proposal on the process for us to debate and come
Unhelpful for whom? If we ship the latest, secure config from the single
release branch, we wouldn't be encumbered by having to use tricks for fixes.
Most end users who get their custom build from the distros would get the same
custom directive-level fixes applicable to them (ie: they know
On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> I'd further add that no directives are added in
>> patch releases, but minor releases would be fair game.
>
> I don't think that kind of rule would be helpful, it just pushes
> configuration into defines, per-request
> I'd further add that no directives are added in
> patch releases, but minor releases would be fair game.
I don't think that kind of rule would be helpful, it just pushes
configuration into defines, per-request environment variables, etc
which are worse (because unlike a directive, you can't
Yeah - I think my main concern is really just around the backporting
process with STATUS and how that will have issues scaling across many
branches. Further, as each branch deviates, it becomes more of a
cognitive exercise for developers to figure out if the fix in branch XYZ
is applicable and the
> On Apr 20, 2018, at 8:28 AM, Micha Lenk wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 04/20/2018 01:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Where numbers and versioning DOES matter is how it affects
>> distributors and vendors of httpd and the entire module eco-system.
> No, it doesn't. There are way
Hi Jim,
On 04/20/2018 01:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Where numbers and versioning DOES matter is how it affects
distributors and vendors of httpd and the entire module eco-system.
No, it doesn't. There are way too many variants of versioning schemes
out there in use by so many OSS projects
Am 20.04.2018 um 11:39 schrieb Eric Covener:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:15 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
Do we need a quick APR 1.6.4 to pick up r1819938? From CHANGES:
*) poll, port: re-add the wakeup pipe to the pollset after it triggered.
Not doing this occasionally
> On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:08 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Let me counter with this... Rather than break the API every m.n release, what
> if we roll on to 2.6 with no ABI breakage, or resolve with impumity
> everything wrong in 3.0 with a firm commitment not to break
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:15 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Do we need a quick APR 1.6.4 to pick up r1819938? From CHANGES:
>
> *) poll, port: re-add the wakeup pipe to the pollset after it triggered.
>Not doing this occasionally lead to httpd event MPM processes hanging
>
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
>> The necessity/evaluation of the dependency belongs
>> here... we once could compile httpd 2.4 against APR 1.4 family and had
>> agreement that this would continue through the lifecycle, but I seriously
>> doubt that
> On 20 Apr 2018, at 01:39, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> I'm not sure where in the conversation to add this, but I do want to
> point out a mechanical concern.
>
>
> If we end up with API and feature freeze on branch 2.4, then we'd expect
> to roll 2.6. Soon enough, we'll
On 04/19/2018 09:19 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 19.04.2018 um 17:37 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
With all this in mind, should
Am 20.04.2018 um 09:22 schrieb William A Rowe Jr:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
Do we need a quick APR 1.6.4 to pick up r1819938? From CHANGES:
*) poll, port: re-add the wakeup pipe to the pollset after it triggered.
Not doing this
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Do we need a quick APR 1.6.4 to pick up r1819938? From CHANGES:
>
> *) poll, port: re-add the wakeup pipe to the pollset after it triggered.
>Not doing this occasionally lead to httpd event MPM processes hanging
>
Do we need a quick APR 1.6.4 to pick up r1819938? From CHANGES:
*) poll, port: re-add the wakeup pipe to the pollset after it triggered.
Not doing this occasionally lead to httpd event MPM processes hanging
during process shutdown. PR 61786. [Yann Ylavic]
From the commit log:
Let me counter with this... Rather than break the API every m.n release,
what if we roll on to 2.6 with no ABI breakage, or resolve with impumity
everything wrong in 3.0 with a firm commitment not to break it again till
4.0?
This might be the root problem of our trying to !is versioning
I'm not sure where in the conversation to add this, but I do want to
point out a mechanical concern.
If we end up with API and feature freeze on branch 2.4, then we'd expect
to roll 2.6. Soon enough, we'll hit a situation where 2.6 (as a release
branch) can't get a feature or the next great
I don't think Stefan is proposing that we mindlessly ship based on an
arbitrary set of dates. That'd be too corporate :-)
I think in the past you mentioned that we have had features/fixes/Good
Stuff(tm) that was probably *ready*... just not yet released. I do
recall a few times where there
I don't disagree with RC's entirely, or the mechanism you suggest, but that
isn't what I read as proposed.
Our issue is that every httpd must be distinguished, we won't ship four
tarballs all claiming 2.4.34 (GA). Which one is the person complaining
about? Are we back to SHA signature of the
On 4/19/2018 7:55 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> Again, this would be your burden and call until we have so much
>> routine/automation that everyone can do it. So it needs to be your decision.
> No offense intended here, but I did not really see as many html /
> script / process updates as I had
The main difference is that you have a release branch in which fixes
to bugs or regressions found during 2.4.x RCs can be made, while work
on 2.4.(x+1) can continue in the main 2.4 branch.
Another benefit is that people who do automated builds (e.g. me) can
grep for "RC" in the version number and
What possible improvement occurs if there is no branch discipline
on 2.4.x development? We just echoed effectively your proposal,
using numbers rather than RC designations, and still .33 has this
host of issues. With no release since .29, the branch was in this
continuous state of flux between
Yup, that's exactly it. Have a release branch, iterate there, and in
the meantime, work in the version series branch can continue. That
brings one huge benefit over the current model already: no freezes
necessary, no potential additional breaks after a "burned" version.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at
Am 19.04.2018 um 17:37 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
With all this in mind, should we try to set things up so that the
next release cycle uses the
The idea is encouraging and fostering a broader test audience.
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Unless I misunderstand...
>
> 2.4.30-RC1 (rejected)
> 2.4.30-RC2 (our .31, rejected)
> 2.4.30-RC3 (our .32, rejected)
> 2.4.30-RC4 -> 2.4.30 GA (our
Unless I misunderstand...
2.4.30-RC1 (rejected)
2.4.30-RC2 (our .31, rejected)
2.4.30-RC3 (our .32, rejected)
2.4.30-RC4 -> 2.4.30 GA (our 2.4.33 release)
With all the associated changes in between, no actual change in branch
management, scope, feature creep, etc?
This sounds like dressing up
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> With all this in mind, should we try to set things up so that the
>> next release cycle uses the concept of RCs?
>>
>> If so, and if
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> With all this in mind, should we try to set things up so that the
> next release cycle uses the concept of RCs?
>
> If so, and if people like, I can come up with a baseline
> proposal on the process for us to debate and
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:47 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>
>> and BFDL/NIH-tier levels of "we don't do that, we do things this way... my
>> way or the highway."
>
> That is not quite true nor
With all this in mind, should we try to set things up so that the
next release cycle uses the concept of RCs?
If so, and if people like, I can come up with a baseline
proposal on the process for us to debate and come to
some consensus on.
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:47 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> and BFDL/NIH-tier levels of "we don't do that, we do things this way... my
> way or the highway."
>
That is not quite true nor fair.
It does not take a BFDL/NIH-er, for example, to say "We don't
release s/w
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 09:32 Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Stefan Eissing <
> stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> >
> > Frankly, I think the current state of things does not work well. It
> seems folly to say we should change nothing, only have
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>
> Frankly, I think the current state of things does not work well. It seems
> folly to say we should change nothing, only have more stable releases.
No one is saying we change *nothing*. There just seems
i <j...@jagunet.com>
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. April 2018 15:06
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: So... when should we do 2.4.34? [WAS: Re: Revisit
>> Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)]
>>
>> One of the great thi
2018-04-19 15:40 GMT+02:00 Eric Covener :
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > I agree a case could be made for considering adding an RC stage
> > to our release process... it would require some additional tooling
> > and some sort of
l 2018 15:06
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: So... when should we do 2.4.34? [WAS: Re: Revisit
> Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)]
>
> One of the great things about working on open source is that
> one is NOT burdened by schedules. That relea
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I agree a case could be made for considering adding an RC stage
> to our release process... it would require some additional tooling
> and some sort of additions to ap_release.h but nothing insurmountable.
>
> That might be
I agree a case could be made for considering adding an RC stage
to our release process... it would require some additional tooling
and some sort of additions to ap_release.h but nothing insurmountable.
That might be a nice small-and-easily-reversable step to address
some of the issues that we've
++1
The current versioning and times are fine for me. Only the vote time is too
short. At Apachelounge I have once in a while RC’s from branches before
voting, so the community had more time to test. Issues are then earlier
discovered.
Distributors are free to have a RC any time when they
One of the great things about working on open source is that
one is NOT burdened by schedules. That releases are done
"when ready" not when some artificial schedule or some
calendar date demands. Changing this mindset on httpd would
be an extremely major change, IMO, from what's been at its
heart
> Again, this would be your burden and call until we have so much
> routine/automation that everyone can do it. So it needs to be your decision.
No offense intended here, but I did not really see as many html /
script / process updates as I had expected. I was hoping the new eyes
would get some
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:43 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> On 4/18/2018 10:58 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>> The release cycle is hours, to the benefit of all interested. Be it a
>>> blocking bug fixed or a nice feature implemented. These are mostly people
>>> who do it
Daniel,
would you find it feasible to make a 2.4 release every first Tuesday of the
month? Other projects have excellent experiences with such release timings.
I‘d expect this would let us focus on the changes („one more week until
release“), take off pressure („we can do it in the next
On 4/18/2018 10:58 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>> The release cycle is hours, to the benefit of all interested. Be it a
>> blocking bug fixed or a nice feature implemented. These are mostly people
>> who do it for fun. Some even run large server clusters, so a „hobbyist“
>> label does not
50 matches
Mail list logo