You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> on 2008/11/15 21:50:27 UTC
Time for 2.2.11?
Not that much time has passed since we released 2.2.10 (one month), but
I would like to see a release of 2.2.11 in the near future.
Why?
2.2.10 has two regressions, one against 2.2.8 (crashes caused by the
proxy) which is already backported and one against 2.2.9 (errors in
openssl detection) which is currently proposed for backport and
misses two votes.
There are two further changes in the STATUS file that only miss one
additional vote.
With these 3 changes in the pipeline and the 10 changes already done
for 2.2.11 I think we have enough stuff for a release given the
two regressions above.
I even volunteer to be the RM for this release and if the remaining
proposals get in I would like to T&R on 29th / 30th of November and
release on 6th / 7th of December if the voting passes.
And yes I know some of us will be disappointed that some things will
miss the boat again (especially SNI), but they wouldn't be in a 2.2.x
release even if we do not release 2.2.11 at the beginning of December.
Opinions?
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Time for 2.2.11?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 15, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Not that much time has passed since we released 2.2.10 (one month),
> but
> I would like to see a release of 2.2.11 in the near future.
> Why?
> 2.2.10 has two regressions, one against 2.2.8 (crashes caused by the
> proxy) which is already backported and one against 2.2.9 (errors in
> openssl detection) which is currently proposed for backport and
> misses two votes.
> There are two further changes in the STATUS file that only miss one
> additional vote.
>
> With these 3 changes in the pipeline and the 10 changes already done
> for 2.2.11 I think we have enough stuff for a release given the
> two regressions above.
>
> I even volunteer to be the RM for this release and if the remaining
> proposals get in I would like to T&R on 29th / 30th of November and
> release on 6th / 7th of December if the voting passes.
>
+1... I also volunteer as well, if you get too busy...
Re: Time for 2.2.11?
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Not that much time has passed since we released 2.2.10 (one month), but
> I would like to see a release of 2.2.11 in the near future.
+1
Regards
--
^(TM)
Re: Time for 2.2.11?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Not that much time has passed since we released 2.2.10 (one month), but
> I would like to see a release of 2.2.11 in the near future.
> Why?
> 2.2.10 has two regressions, one against 2.2.8 (crashes caused by the
> proxy) which is already backported and one against 2.2.9 (errors in
> openssl detection) which is currently proposed for backport and
> misses two votes.
> There are two further changes in the STATUS file that only miss one
> additional vote.
>
> With these 3 changes in the pipeline and the 10 changes already done
> for 2.2.11 I think we have enough stuff for a release given the
> two regressions above.
>
> I even volunteer to be the RM for this release and if the remaining
> proposals get in I would like to T&R on 29th / 30th of November and
> release on 6th / 7th of December if the voting passes.
+1 ... and who are we to turn down such an offer :) go for it.
> And yes I know some of us will be disappointed that some things will
> miss the boat again (especially SNI), but they wouldn't be in a 2.2.x
> release even if we do not release 2.2.11 at the beginning of December.
Hmmm... and why not? We have a week or so to look at that.
Re: Time for 2.2.11?
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Not that much time has passed since we released 2.2.10 (one month), but
> I would like to see a release of 2.2.11 in the near future.
+1.
Release early, release often.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Time for 2.2.11?
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
Cool. Thanks!
I'll anxiously await 2.2.11 then.
Rainer Jung wrote:
> Jess Holle schrieb:
>
>> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/15/2008 09:50 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>> Given the positive feedback: Please vote now on the backports :-).
>>>
>>>
>> I /really/ want to see a sub-second proxy connection timeout as this is
>> needed due to Windows' inappropriate RFC interpretation. This would be
>> r705005 produced by Ruediger, I believe.
>>
>> If this is not part of 2.2.11 (I'm pretty sure it did not go into
>> 2.2.10) then I'm going to have to backport this myself into our binaries
>> for real soon here and keep doing so with each new 2.2.x. It would be
>> /much/ better to just have this in 2.2.x.
>>
>
> This has already been backported to 2.2.x on November 11th:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=713145
>
> and
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-cvs/200811.mbox/%3C20081111200203.96CE6238889D@eris.apache.org%3E
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
Re: Time for 2.2.11?
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
ess Holle schrieb:
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> On 11/15/2008 09:50 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> Given the positive feedback: Please vote now on the backports :-).
>>
> I /really/ want to see a sub-second proxy connection timeout as this is
> needed due to Windows' inappropriate RFC interpretation. This would be
> r705005 produced by Ruediger, I believe.
>
> If this is not part of 2.2.11 (I'm pretty sure it did not go into
> 2.2.10) then I'm going to have to backport this myself into our binaries
> for real soon here and keep doing so with each new 2.2.x. It would be
> /much/ better to just have this in 2.2.x.
This has already been backported to 2.2.x on November 11th:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=713145
and
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-cvs/200811.mbox/%3C20081111200203.96CE6238889D@eris.apache.org%3E
Regards,
Rainer
Re: Time for 2.2.11?
Posted by Jess Holle <je...@ptc.com>.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> On 11/15/2008 09:50 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>> Not that much time has passed since we released 2.2.10 (one month), but
>> I would like to see a release of 2.2.11 in the near future.
>> Why?
>> 2.2.10 has two regressions, one against 2.2.8 (crashes caused by the
>> proxy) which is already backported and one against 2.2.9 (errors in
>> openssl detection) which is currently proposed for backport and
>> misses two votes.
>> There are two further changes in the STATUS file that only miss one
>> additional vote.
>>
>> With these 3 changes in the pipeline and the 10 changes already done
>> for 2.2.11 I think we have enough stuff for a release given the
>> two regressions above.
>>
>> I even volunteer to be the RM for this release and if the remaining
>> proposals get in I would like to T&R on 29th / 30th of November and
>> release on 6th / 7th of December if the voting passes.
>>
>> And yes I know some of us will be disappointed that some things will
>> miss the boat again (especially SNI), but they wouldn't be in a 2.2.x
>> release even if we do not release 2.2.11 at the beginning of December.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
> Given the positive feedback: Please vote now on the backports :-).
>
I /really/ want to see a sub-second proxy connection timeout as this is
needed due to Windows' inappropriate RFC interpretation. This would be
r705005 produced by Ruediger, I believe.
If this is not part of 2.2.11 (I'm pretty sure it did not go into
2.2.10) then I'm going to have to backport this myself into our binaries
for real soon here and keep doing so with each new 2.2.x. It would be
/much/ better to just have this in 2.2.x.
--
Jess Holle
Re: Time for 2.2.11?
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 11/15/2008 09:50 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Not that much time has passed since we released 2.2.10 (one month), but
> I would like to see a release of 2.2.11 in the near future.
> Why?
> 2.2.10 has two regressions, one against 2.2.8 (crashes caused by the
> proxy) which is already backported and one against 2.2.9 (errors in
> openssl detection) which is currently proposed for backport and
> misses two votes.
> There are two further changes in the STATUS file that only miss one
> additional vote.
>
> With these 3 changes in the pipeline and the 10 changes already done
> for 2.2.11 I think we have enough stuff for a release given the
> two regressions above.
>
> I even volunteer to be the RM for this release and if the remaining
> proposals get in I would like to T&R on 29th / 30th of November and
> release on 6th / 7th of December if the voting passes.
>
> And yes I know some of us will be disappointed that some things will
> miss the boat again (especially SNI), but they wouldn't be in a 2.2.x
> release even if we do not release 2.2.11 at the beginning of December.
>
> Opinions?
Given the positive feedback: Please vote now on the backports :-).
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: Time for 2.2.11?
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
I'd prefere to have stable bug free (well as little as possible) release,
New feature are nice, but they can wait IMHO.
Just my 2 cents
~Jorge
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not that much time has passed since we released 2.2.10 (one month), but
> I would like to see a release of 2.2.11 in the near future.
> Why?
> 2.2.10 has two regressions, one against 2.2.8 (crashes caused by the
> proxy) which is already backported and one against 2.2.9 (errors in
> openssl detection) which is currently proposed for backport and
> misses two votes.
> There are two further changes in the STATUS file that only miss one
> additional vote.
>
> With these 3 changes in the pipeline and the 10 changes already done
> for 2.2.11 I think we have enough stuff for a release given the
> two regressions above.
>
> I even volunteer to be the RM for this release and if the remaining
> proposals get in I would like to T&R on 29th / 30th of November and
> release on 6th / 7th of December if the voting passes.
>
> And yes I know some of us will be disappointed that some things will
> miss the boat again (especially SNI), but they wouldn't be in a 2.2.x
> release even if we do not release 2.2.11 at the beginning of December.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>