You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2015/05/22 08:51:49 UTC
Platform specific CTR/RTC?
I think this has sat enough in STATUS that I'll commit by lazy consensus
prior to tag and roll of 2.2.30, unless anyone has a legitimate
correction/objection?
It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift
between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the
ported-afterwards functionality in the previous 2.4.12 release, with
apparently no issues. The patch below is actually the origin of the
enhancement.
* mpm_winnt service.c: Accept utf-8 service names/descriptions for i18n.
trunk patches: http://svn.apache.org/r1611165
http://svn.apache.org/r1611169
2.2.x patch:
http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/httpd-2.2-utf8-servicename.patch
+1: wrowe, gsmith
Re: Platform specific CTR/RTC?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:51 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
wrote:
> I think this has sat enough in STATUS that I'll commit by lazy consensus
> prior to tag and roll of 2.2.30, unless anyone has a legitimate
> correction/objection?
>
>
IMO it is appropriate to use CTR in the stable branches with
platform-specific code/build (where platform = Windows, NetWare, and other
non-Unix), and it is also nice/appropriate/whatever to give a heads up like
you did.
It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
> years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift
> between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the
> ported-afterwards functionality in the previous 2.4.12 release, with
> apparently no issues. The patch below is actually the origin of the
> enhancement.
>
> * mpm_winnt service.c: Accept utf-8 service names/descriptions for i18n.
> trunk patches: http://svn.apache.org/r1611165
> http://svn.apache.org/r1611169
> 2.2.x patch:
> http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/httpd-2.2-utf8-servicename.patch
> +1: wrowe, gsmith
>
>
>
>
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: Platform specific CTR/RTC?
Posted by Mario Brandt <jb...@gmail.com>.
+1
On 22 May 2015 at 08:51, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> I think this has sat enough in STATUS that I'll commit by lazy consensus
> prior to tag and roll of 2.2.30, unless anyone has a legitimate
> correction/objection?
>
> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
> years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift
> between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the
> ported-afterwards functionality in the previous 2.4.12 release, with
> apparently no issues. The patch below is actually the origin of the
> enhancement.
>
> * mpm_winnt service.c: Accept utf-8 service names/descriptions for i18n.
> trunk patches: http://svn.apache.org/r1611165
> http://svn.apache.org/r1611169
> 2.2.x patch:
> http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/httpd-2.2-utf8-servicename.patch
> +1: wrowe, gsmith
>
>
>
Re: Platform specific CTR/RTC?
Posted by Gregg Smith <gl...@gknw.net>.
On 5/22/2015 8:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jeff Trawick<tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski<ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
>>> gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
>>
>> There might be others who test when something seems appropriate to them
>> and they have time ;)
>>
>>
>>> I tried, but I never got
>>> even to the point of getting it to even compile/build much
>>> less to a point where I could *test* :)
>>>
> I'm hoping for several things in the coming months, just began installing
> and reviewing the community preview of Visual Studio 2015. Again, there is
> a free-to-use community edition.
>
> Something very, very interesting there; they've come back around to the
> idea of a long-lived C language runtime again (not msvcrt.dll, a successor
> to the Visual Studio 2012 flavor).
>
> So the 2015 team believes it will live on to the next generation products.
> So did the VS '97 folks, so that is no guarantee, but it's hopeful.
I think this is somewhat because from what I've been reading, apparently
Windows 10 will be good forever, "forever" at least being the life of
the machine. The Zen Master then replied, "We'll see."
Re: Platform specific CTR/RTC?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
>> gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
>
>
> There might be others who test when something seems appropriate to them
> and they have time ;)
>
>
>> I tried, but I never got
>> even to the point of getting it to even compile/build much
>> less to a point where I could *test* :)
>>
>
I'm hoping for several things in the coming months, just began installing
and reviewing the community preview of Visual Studio 2015. Again, there is
a free-to-use community edition.
Something very, very interesting there; they've come back around to the
idea of a long-lived C language runtime again (not msvcrt.dll, a successor
to the Visual Studio 2012 flavor).
So the 2015 team believes it will live on to the next generation products.
So did the VS '97 folks, so that is no guarantee, but it's hopeful.
Re: Platform specific CTR/RTC?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
> gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
There might be others who test when something seems appropriate to them and
they have time ;)
> I tried, but I never got
> even to the point of getting it to even compile/build much
> less to a point where I could *test* :)
>
>
> > On May 22, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 22 May 2015 01:51:49 -0500
> > William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
> >> years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift
> >> between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the
> >> ported-afterwards functionality in the previous 2.4.12 release, with
> >> apparently no issues. The patch below is actually the origin of the
> >> enhancement.
> >
> > In those circumstances it seems not so much CTR or RTC but rather
> > commonsense to go ahead. Don't we have a bit of a history of
> > struggling to meet RTC criteria on Windows-specific backports?
> >
> > I wonder if there's a case for formally adopting a lazy-consensus
> > policy based on what wrowe is doing here? If a proposal has sat in
> > STATUS for a qualifying period, without attracting comment/
> > reservations, but also without attracting sufficient review +1s,
> > should it be eligible for lazy-consensus backport?
> > The proponent posts here on a "speak now or forever hold your peace"
> > basis, and goes ahead if no discussion calls it into question.
> >
> > --
> > Nick Kew
>
>
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: Platform specific CTR/RTC?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win. I tried, but I never got
even to the point of getting it to even compile/build much
less to a point where I could *test* :)
> On May 22, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 May 2015 01:51:49 -0500
> William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>
>> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
>> years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift
>> between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the
>> ported-afterwards functionality in the previous 2.4.12 release, with
>> apparently no issues. The patch below is actually the origin of the
>> enhancement.
>
> In those circumstances it seems not so much CTR or RTC but rather
> commonsense to go ahead. Don't we have a bit of a history of
> struggling to meet RTC criteria on Windows-specific backports?
>
> I wonder if there's a case for formally adopting a lazy-consensus
> policy based on what wrowe is doing here? If a proposal has sat in
> STATUS for a qualifying period, without attracting comment/
> reservations, but also without attracting sufficient review +1s,
> should it be eligible for lazy-consensus backport?
> The proponent posts here on a "speak now or forever hold your peace"
> basis, and goes ahead if no discussion calls it into question.
>
> --
> Nick Kew
Re: Platform specific CTR/RTC?
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Fri, 22 May 2015 01:51:49 -0500
William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
> years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift
> between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the
> ported-afterwards functionality in the previous 2.4.12 release, with
> apparently no issues. The patch below is actually the origin of the
> enhancement.
In those circumstances it seems not so much CTR or RTC but rather
commonsense to go ahead. Don't we have a bit of a history of
struggling to meet RTC criteria on Windows-specific backports?
I wonder if there's a case for formally adopting a lazy-consensus
policy based on what wrowe is doing here? If a proposal has sat in
STATUS for a qualifying period, without attracting comment/
reservations, but also without attracting sufficient review +1s,
should it be eligible for lazy-consensus backport?
The proponent posts here on a "speak now or forever hold your peace"
basis, and goes ahead if no discussion calls it into question.
--
Nick Kew