3.2.6 or not

["Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy" <gr...@ispol.com>]

OK, I know we've had some votes on this before, but I'd like to put this 
in a separate thread where it's not intermixed with all kinds of other 
things.

This is a vote for the core group. We can release the 3.2.6 tarball as is 
or fix the connection handler bugs (there are two of them - the buffer 
pointer and eagain condition Graham tracked down) and release a 3.2.7 (or 
3.2.6.1). The rationale for disregarding those known issues is that the 
connection handler is hardly used by anyone. The rationale for NOT 
disregarding is that we claim this to be a stable release, and given our 
slow release cycle, I imagine 3.2.6 will be around for a while.

Anyhow - *the core group* (you know who you are), if you think 3.2.6 
should be released as is, send in your +1.

Let's keep this thread strictly a vote, without it turning into a 
discussion (we can discuss things in other threads).

My official vote is +0.

(To see what this means read http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html)

Grisha

Re: 3.2.6 or not

[Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>]

According to the Apache rules we need three +1 votes. As there are only 
4 of us voting the two +0 votes are already enough to kill the proposal. 
(I should have done the math this morning. ;) )

I'll commit Grahams' _conn_read fix and generate the 3.2.7 tarball 
shortly. I'm also +1 on releasing 3.2.7 without a restrained testing period.

Jim


Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
> My official vote is eventually -1 for 3.2.6, see the previous
> discussion for why I've changed my mind.
> 
> However I'm +1 on releasing 3.2.7 without a restrained testing period,
> not a long one like for 3.2.6.
> 
> Regards,
> Nicolas
> 
> 2006/2/2, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>:
> 
>>I know you said no discussion Grisha, but can I have 2 ballots? ;)
>>
>>-1 If Graham thinks his conn handler fix is good, let's do 3.2.7 today.
>>
>>+1 If Graham is not sure, we release 3.2.6 now as is, and do a 3.2.7
>>bugfix in the next 4 to 6 weeks after digging into _conn_read issue further.
>>
>>So, I guess that makes my official vote a +0.
>>
>>Over to you Graham. No pressure though. :)
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>(Dang, it makes me feel dirty to waffle on my first offical vote that way).
>>
>>Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>>
>>>OK, I know we've had some votes on this before, but I'd like to put this
>>>in a separate thread where it's not intermixed with all kinds of other
>>>things.
>>>
>>>This is a vote for the core group. We can release the 3.2.6 tarball as
>>>is or fix the connection handler bugs (there are two of them - the
>>>buffer pointer and eagain condition Graham tracked down) and release a
>>>3.2.7 (or 3.2.6.1). The rationale for disregarding those known issues is
>>>that the connection handler is hardly used by anyone. The rationale for
>>>NOT disregarding is that we claim this to be a stable release, and given
>>>our slow release cycle, I imagine 3.2.6 will be around for a while.
>>>
>>>Anyhow - *the core group* (you know who you are), if you think 3.2.6
>>>should be released as is, send in your +1.
>>>
>>>Let's keep this thread strictly a vote, without it turning into a
>>>discussion (we can discuss things in other threads).
>>>
>>>My official vote is +0.
>>>
>>>(To see what this means read http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html)
>>>
>>>Grisha
>>>
>>
>>
> 

Re: 3.2.6 or not

[Nicolas Lehuen <ni...@gmail.com>]

My official vote is eventually -1 for 3.2.6, see the previous
discussion for why I've changed my mind.

However I'm +1 on releasing 3.2.7 without a restrained testing period,
not a long one like for 3.2.6.

Regards,
Nicolas

2006/2/2, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>:
> I know you said no discussion Grisha, but can I have 2 ballots? ;)
>
> -1 If Graham thinks his conn handler fix is good, let's do 3.2.7 today.
>
> +1 If Graham is not sure, we release 3.2.6 now as is, and do a 3.2.7
> bugfix in the next 4 to 6 weeks after digging into _conn_read issue further.
>
> So, I guess that makes my official vote a +0.
>
> Over to you Graham. No pressure though. :)
>
> Jim
>
> (Dang, it makes me feel dirty to waffle on my first offical vote that way).
>
> Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
> >
> > OK, I know we've had some votes on this before, but I'd like to put this
> > in a separate thread where it's not intermixed with all kinds of other
> > things.
> >
> > This is a vote for the core group. We can release the 3.2.6 tarball as
> > is or fix the connection handler bugs (there are two of them - the
> > buffer pointer and eagain condition Graham tracked down) and release a
> > 3.2.7 (or 3.2.6.1). The rationale for disregarding those known issues is
> > that the connection handler is hardly used by anyone. The rationale for
> > NOT disregarding is that we claim this to be a stable release, and given
> > our slow release cycle, I imagine 3.2.6 will be around for a while.
> >
> > Anyhow - *the core group* (you know who you are), if you think 3.2.6
> > should be released as is, send in your +1.
> >
> > Let's keep this thread strictly a vote, without it turning into a
> > discussion (we can discuss things in other threads).
> >
> > My official vote is +0.
> >
> > (To see what this means read http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html)
> >
> > Grisha
> >
>
>

Re: 3.2.6 or not

[Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>]

I know you said no discussion Grisha, but can I have 2 ballots? ;)

-1 If Graham thinks his conn handler fix is good, let's do 3.2.7 today.

+1 If Graham is not sure, we release 3.2.6 now as is, and do a 3.2.7 
bugfix in the next 4 to 6 weeks after digging into _conn_read issue further.

So, I guess that makes my official vote a +0.

Over to you Graham. No pressure though. :)

Jim

(Dang, it makes me feel dirty to waffle on my first offical vote that way).

Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
> 
> OK, I know we've had some votes on this before, but I'd like to put this 
> in a separate thread where it's not intermixed with all kinds of other 
> things.
> 
> This is a vote for the core group. We can release the 3.2.6 tarball as 
> is or fix the connection handler bugs (there are two of them - the 
> buffer pointer and eagain condition Graham tracked down) and release a 
> 3.2.7 (or 3.2.6.1). The rationale for disregarding those known issues is 
> that the connection handler is hardly used by anyone. The rationale for 
> NOT disregarding is that we claim this to be a stable release, and given 
> our slow release cycle, I imagine 3.2.6 will be around for a while.
> 
> Anyhow - *the core group* (you know who you are), if you think 3.2.6 
> should be released as is, send in your +1.
> 
> Let's keep this thread strictly a vote, without it turning into a 
> discussion (we can discuss things in other threads).
> 
> My official vote is +0.
> 
> (To see what this means read http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html)
> 
> Grisha
>