You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> on 2003/11/13 01:07:20 UTC
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutionsplease
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> One question: Have we set the barrier too high? This was discussed at
> length last year when the 2_0_BRANCH was created and I think that it is
> worth reviewing. My personal feeling is that the barrier may be doing
> more to discourage development and patch submission than it is to avoid
> breaking the code. Should the barrier be relaxed to a certain extent?
> When a patch is submitted to the 2_0_BRANCH, isn't the most important
> question to be asked, does it break backward compatibility? If the
> answer is no, then why not commit it? Is there any other reason to hold
> a patch (bug fix or enhancement) over in the 2.1 branch? There is a
> growing list of backports in the 2.0 STATUS file and although I haven't
> reviewed them all personally, my guess is that the majority of them
> won't break backward compatibility otherwise they wouldn't have been
> proposed.
>
> People like to see the results of their work. This is true whether it
> be software development or fixing the kitchen sink. To my knowledge
> there has never been a release of the 2.1 branch therefore much of the
> work that is going on there is going unnoticed. This includes bug fixes
> as well as new features. Yes, you can say that people can just pull the
> code from CVS, but what percentage of potential testers pull the code
> from CVS vs. download a tar ball? If developers are allowed to see the
> results of a patch that they submitted, they are much more likely to
> submit another one.
>
> The current R-T-C policy in place over the 2_0_BRANCH prevents
> otherwise good patches from making it into the code in a timely fashion.
> I have a proposed backport that has been sitting there for weeks with
> only a 0 vote placed on it. I understand that relaxing the R-T-C policy
> may allow for a certain degree of destabilization, but isn't it faster
> to find a bug in code than it is to find it in a description of proposed
> patch. Also, the people that seem to be reviewing the patches, appears
> to be the same set of people which tends to say that there are fewer
> eyeballs on a patch rather than more.
>
> IMO, the faster we get patches in front of the masses, the faster bugs
> are fixed and stabilization is acheived.
+1
I feel we should bring the barrier to entry as low as possible, and
right now the bar is too high. I would be in favor of going back
to CTR on 2.0, and letting the incompatibilities and bugs sort
themselves out with our beta testers (who, mind you, are completely
willing to play with the latest and greatest and would be happy to
submit bug reports).
-aaron
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down,
solutionsplease
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
At 01:45 PM 11/14/2003, Sander Striker wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 09:06, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>>
>> Just to point out the obvious fact that hopefully everybody can agree with and
>> consider taking action on: More code review[er]s would be useful regardless of
>> C-T-R vs. R-T-C. And whether or not you agree with the current order of
>> Committing and Reviewing for the stable branch, helping out with reviews would
>> result in fixes being merged into the stable branch much faster.
>
>Exactly. And may I also note that releases are way more likely not to
>be duds now we are using R-T-C on the stable branch? I have noticed a
>significant difference in effort it takes to release since we switched
>stable to R-T-C.
++1. When something must-be-fixed (such as building on the fd/handle
inheritence fixes that were introduced for security, but introduced a few
new bugs --- or the cgid issues) - a new release on 2.0 can be created
with little hassle and is doesn't require each platform guru to 'weigh in'
on new breakage on their platform.
Nobody minds breakage in the process of improving the project. When
httpd 2.0 and 2.1 were broken apart, we provided an autobaun for new
development (2.1) that is as unstable as necessary to move forward, and
maintained a nice, solid two lane bypass (2.0) that was reliable and ready
to tag as a release with little pain and maximum return.
Some may suggest this has slowed down development. I'd ask, do you
have a patch that you didn't commit to 2.1 yet? If so, why not?
I'd ask, if you are arguing about 2.0 - what's not moving forward 'fast enough'
for your taste? Your patch is stuck, awaiting review? This last question
I ask then is - if you are waiting for others to review your patch, how many
patches did you provide review and feedback for last week? This must
be a collaborative effort, if you aren't reviewing patches - please don't moan
when there are too few folks to review your own patch.
Bill
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down,
solutionsplease
Posted by K Lee <K_...@slink-software.com>.
I think Apache's core has become stable and very solid
(just like TCP/IP stack). It has a very good modules
architecture. Most of the new features are added as module.
There are no need to add more features to the httpd core.
Apache is not MS and does not need to add more "features"
to the core to just get rid of the competitions.
Personally I think Apache has become the next TCP/IP stack in
the future of webserver, webservice software foundation -
solid, stable, well design, extenable with a lot of
new functionalities without changing the core.
As an user, I would love to use software with
these kind of characterists "solid, stable, well design,
extenable". It just works continuously, nothing
sexy anymore - like the TCPIP stack, the phone,
utilites (water, gas, electrial power), highway, etc.
I view for the apache core, httpd-dev's life slowing down as
a very good thing.
My $0.02
K Lee
--
http://www.slink-software.com
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down,
solutionsplease
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 09:06, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
> Just to point out the obvious fact that hopefully everybody can agree with and
> consider taking action on: More code review[er]s would be useful regardless of
> C-T-R vs. R-T-C. And whether or not you agree with the current order of
> Committing and Reviewing for the stable branch, helping out with reviews would
> result in fixes being merged into the stable branch much faster.
Exactly. And may I also note that releases are way more likely not to
be duds now we are using R-T-C on the stable branch? I have noticed a
significant difference in effort it takes to release since we switched
stable to R-T-C.
Sander
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutionsplease
Posted by Matthieu Estrade <ap...@moresecurity.org>.
Hi,
I would like to speak a little about all this slow answer or review
problems.
i will take example of my last patch about ldap-cache.
I started doing it 5 month ago, and posted few patch many times on dev@.
Nobody answered on the list, i posted about 4 or 5 times the same
subject and patches.
Finally, i sent an email to concerned people and i get answer it was a
good job. The patch was not commited.
Then i continued working on it and made it more stable (the more i am
able...) I posted it few times again on the dev@ and on bugzilla, no
more answer during one month...
Then, Jeff Trawick get it and it become faster, lots of mail and
communication, and finally, the patch was commited last week.
I understand core team have a lot of work reviewing, implementing new
features, patching and fixing bugs... But on the other side (mine), it's
really discouraging to don't get answer during 3-4 month about work i did.
I needed this patch for my company and it was working here... so finally
there is no problem it was commited or not...
This slow answer and when there is, is bad for people who submit/write
patches...
Maybe a new patch management or more people able to commit/review
"experimental/modules only" would be good. It could encourage people to
participate more in apache httpd project.
I can speak with many cool people on IRC and apache channels which is
why i continue effort, but people not in this case will i think, not try
a lot to help.
This is not "reproach" or bad mind about people in apache, but it's just
a feedback about somebody who try to help and participate.
I hope my english was not too bad and there isn't wrong sense in what i
said.
People who use to speak with me should understand...
Matthieu
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>
> Just to point out the obvious fact that hopefully everybody can agree
> with and consider taking action on: More code review[er]s would be
> useful regardless of C-T-R vs. R-T-C. And whether or not you agree
> with the current order of Committing and Reviewing for the stable
> branch, helping out with reviews would result in fixes being merged
> into the stable branch much faster.
>
>
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutionsplease
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 09:55:24AM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
Just to point out the obvious fact that hopefully everybody can agree with and
consider taking action on: More code review[er]s would be useful regardless of
C-T-R vs. R-T-C. And whether or not you agree with the current order of
Committing and Reviewing for the stable branch, helping out with reviews would
result in fixes being merged into the stable branch much faster.
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutionsplease
Posted by Ace Suares <ac...@suares.nl>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Graham,
>
> The wheels turn slowly, but they do turn.
grin...
> If you expect people to be at
> your beck and call, to apply the patches immediately as they're
> submitted, then you're going to have to pay us :)
I don't expect that! But hey, if you give me a quote on how much it'll cost,
I'll consider ;-)
>
> The patch is available that in theory should solve your problem, so you
> should not have a need to downgrade from v2.0 - if the patch is in
> bugzilla then it won't fall through the cracks, and once I've achieved
> the impossible for my client by the end of this weekend, I'll have some
> time to review and apply it - you're going to have to be patient though.
I am patient - not so my client who wants the impossible before the end of
this weekend.... and my hands are strained already from typing to much under
pressure :-(
And, the patch for 2.0 is NOT there - Brent clearly stated to me that the
newer module is different from the 1.6.0 rudedog module, and that his patch
won't apply, and that he has no time to fix it now, but he'll look into it
later.
>
> Your effort in hunting down the problem in the first place is greatly
> appreciated - the end result is that Apache has one less bug and is mroe
> stable than before, but this stuff still takes time...
Brent did all the work - in 2001 !!!!! No idea why it never made it to the
rudedog module. If it had, it wouldn't be a bug in 2.0 !
I just wanted to talk to the right person. If that's you, then we are already
in contact. I will NOW submit a bug report for 2.0 with the 1.3 patch
attached, I think it's very easy for you to figure out how to patch 2.0, when
the time is there. I am staying with 1.3 at least until the end of this
weekend ;-)
Let the wheels turn - I am not in a hurry, my problem is already fixed.
Cheers,
ace
website: http://www.suares.nl * http://www.qwikzite.nl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/s4Uny7boE8xtIjURAo0+AKCQ/5i8MWo4ZaIIxo2KegID41B/NQCfQPK4
PoXxIdJ86V841l9QwdEi7Ck=
=PIH1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutionsplease
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Ace Suares wrote:
> Brent Putnam has told me that mod_auth_ldap in 2.0 differs from 1.3 (the
> external rudedog module) and that his patch won't work, and that he has no
> time on his hands at the moment. Okay, that means that as only option I can
> just post a bug report, and I will... In the hope that the next 2.0.x release
> will have it fixed. I mean, I downgraded from apache2 because of this
> problem! Only to discover it was there in 1.3 + rudedog too. But the rudedog
> module got fixed by Brent Putnam, but alas the maintainer of the rudedog
> module [Dave] hasn't reacted to my request to patch 1.6.0.
> So, there's a dead end there too... I love Open Source development >:-)
The wheels turn slowly, but they do turn. If you expect people to be at
your beck and call, to apply the patches immediately as they're
submitted, then you're going to have to pay us :)
The patch is available that in theory should solve your problem, so you
should not have a need to downgrade from v2.0 - if the patch is in
bugzilla then it won't fall through the cracks, and once I've achieved
the impossible for my client by the end of this weekend, I'll have some
time to review and apply it - you're going to have to be patient though.
Your effort in hunting down the problem in the first place is greatly
appreciated - the end result is that Apache has one less bug and is mroe
stable than before, but this stuff still takes time...
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutionsplease
Posted by Ace Suares <ac...@suares.nl>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
>
> Sure it is the right list.
Thx!
> Unfortunately I can't help you in this case,
> because my ldap knowledge is about zero.
My C skills are zero. I see just the two of us won't get anywhere ;-)
> However, one tip: Don't give up.
> Repeat your questions every x days until someone replies. Otherwise people
> even forget that they wanted to answer, because they are that busy. (It's
> my experience with the folks here -- and myself as well :-).
I would never do that. Well, I'd never think of that. I reposted the question
because it seemed to be in the wrong thread. And after three days... that's a
looong time in internet, if no one replied after that it's never gonna be
answered...
For mod_ldap, there is a listing on some webpage who's done something on that,
I contacted [Graham] directly. But I couldn't find any name of the person who
did mod_auth_ldap. That's why I poked my head around the door to ask 'who's
there?'
Brent Putnam has told me that mod_auth_ldap in 2.0 differs from 1.3 (the
external rudedog module) and that his patch won't work, and that he has no
time on his hands at the moment. Okay, that means that as only option I can
just post a bug report, and I will... In the hope that the next 2.0.x release
will have it fixed. I mean, I downgraded from apache2 because of this
problem! Only to discover it was there in 1.3 + rudedog too. But the rudedog
module got fixed by Brent Putnam, but alas the maintainer of the rudedog
module [Dave] hasn't reacted to my request to patch 1.6.0.
So, there's a dead end there too... I love Open Source development >:-)
I'd like to thank you for your answers and wish you (all) strength and courage
in cranking out apache 2.0.x, 2.1.x, 2.2.x, 3, 4... for now I won't bother
this list anymore ;-)
Cheers!
_Ace
website: http://www.suares.nl * http://www.qwikzite.nl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/s3Nmy7boE8xtIjURAqdXAJoCJVS5DN1/dWsofmQb5ZRdHAZ78gCeI7aG
7z78jpxJqkVCOR9HCLWzTPc=
=Lorr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down,
solutionsplease
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Ace Suares <ac...@suares.nl> wrote:
> But one simple question, 'is this the right list for mod_auth_ldap, and do
> you know who is 'responsible' for it, don't get answered, however, there
> is time to answer about a broken threading and even time to answer that
> you're real busy... way to go.
Hey ;-)
Sure it is the right list. Unfortunately I can't help you in this case,
because my ldap knowledge is about zero. However, one tip: Don't give up.
Repeat your questions every x days until someone replies. Otherwise people
even forget that they wanted to answer, because they are that busy. (It's my
experience with the folks here -- and myself as well :-).
nd
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutionsplease
Posted by Ace Suares <ac...@suares.nl>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> * Ace Suares <ac...@suares.nl> wrote:
> > Sure. But no one reacted on the mod_auth_ldap problem for over 3 days !
> > Jeez.... you must be real busy !
>
> Exactly. Believe it or not.
I believe it. Just saw the [STATUS] messages.
But one simple question, 'is this the right list for mod_auth_ldap, and do you
know who is 'responsible' for it, don't get answered, however, there is time
to answer about a broken threading and even time to answer that you're real
busy... way to go.
Okay, I am new here, and IANAD(Y), and I'll try to find out how to post the
odd mod_auth_ldap behaviour as a bug and just hope the best for it.
Cheer up! I am of the type that doesn't even *know* other webservers then
apache. And I have great fun with the rewriting rules, oh yeah.
Bye,
ace
>
> nd
- --
Ace Suares' Internet Consultancy
NIEUW ADRES: Postbus 2599, 4800 CN Breda
telefoon: 06-244 33 608
fax en voicemail: 0848-707 705
website: http://www.suares.nl * http://www.qwikzite.nl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/s0zJy7boE8xtIjURAj3KAJ4sIOACkao26woUQ39n3sny2ijX6QCdHdZb
24kzGjkVEGMs714yJ1CLoOU=
=w/xM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down,
solutionsplease
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Ace Suares <ac...@suares.nl> wrote:
> Sure. But no one reacted on the mod_auth_ldap problem for over 3 days !
> Jeez.... you must be real busy !
Exactly. Believe it or not.
nd
Re: the wheel of httpd-dev life is surely slowing down, solutionsplease
Posted by Ace Suares <ac...@suares.nl>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> >
> > IMO, the faster we get patches in front of the masses, the faster bugs
> > are fixed and stabilization is acheived.
>
> +1
Sure. But no one reacted on the mod_auth_ldap problem for over 3 days !
Jeez.... you must be real busy !
No offense,
ace
>
> I feel we should bring the barrier to entry as low as possible, and
> right now the bar is too high. I would be in favor of going back
> to CTR on 2.0, and letting the incompatibilities and bugs sort
> themselves out with our beta testers (who, mind you, are completely
> willing to play with the latest and greatest and would be happy to
> submit bug reports).
>
> -aaron
- --
Ace Suares' Internet Consultancy
NIEUW ADRES: Postbus 2599, 4800 CN Breda
telefoon: 06-244 33 608
fax en voicemail: 0848-707 705
website: http://www.suares.nl * http://www.qwikzite.nl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQE/suoAy7boE8xtIjURAoLCAJY5yKMxZhGquDLB96Z4qnT/I9NhAJ9LxX4A
T86j+f4qlPpxSqilNxV7Qg==
=iG2i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----