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 2015/08/26 17:21:33 UTC
Intent to Tag 2.5.0 for -alpha consideration
I'm planning to tag trunk on 11 Sept to get 2.5.0 and mod_h2 into users
hands ASAP and collect feedback on that module ahead of any merges back
into the stable 2.4.x branch.
Concerns/Questions/Roadblocks/Showstoppers?
Re: Intent to Tag 2.5.0 for -alpha consideration
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
>
> The faster early adopters can get us bug feedback, the faster the stable and tested module can be backported to 2.4 without "experimental" warnings, IMO.
>
Nobody is going to do that. No one is going to run 2.5 alpha to
test h2 and http/2 when people were ALREADY using and testing
h2|http/2 under 2.4 via the module being available under Github.
Doing this kinda of aborts the whole concept of bringing in mod_h2
as we did: to allow for http/2 NOW and provide insights on how
to best rearchitect 2.6/3.0 for 'even better' http/2 support.
Re: Intent to Tag 2.5.0 for -alpha consideration
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 1:24 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Ideally, getting mod_h2 into users hands will be MUCH easier by focusing
> on finishing up the 2.4 backporting... This "out of the blue" notice
> to alpha 2.5 seems to me some method to "stall" or circumvent action in that
> direction by changing the goalposts...
>
> If everyone is on the same page about our versioning contract with module authors, the backport thumbs up-or-down decision is going to be clear cut to all of us, right?
>
> -0.9
>
> Thank you for your notice of intent to vote against a release, I appreciate the heads-up. Releases cannot be vetoed, of course.
>
> The faster early adopters can get us bug feedback, the faster the stable and tested module can be backported to 2.4 without "experimental" warnings, IMO.
You do know, of course, that the module WAS designed WITH 2.4 IN MIND...
That is, the module was created to add http/2 to 2.4.
Re: Intent to Tag 2.5.0 for -alpha consideration
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Ideally, getting mod_h2 into users hands will be MUCH easier by focusing
> on finishing up the 2.4 backporting... This "out of the blue" notice
> to alpha 2.5 seems to me some method to "stall" or circumvent action in
> that
> direction by changing the goalposts...
>
If everyone is on the same page about our versioning contract with module
authors, the backport thumbs up-or-down decision is going to be clear cut
to all of us, right?
-0.9
Thank you for your notice of intent to vote against a release, I appreciate
the heads-up. Releases cannot be vetoed, of course.
The faster early adopters can get us bug feedback, the faster the stable
and tested module can be backported to 2.4 without "experimental" warnings,
IMO.
Re: Intent to Tag 2.5.0 for -alpha consideration
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Ideally, getting mod_h2 into users hands will be MUCH easier by focusing
on finishing up the 2.4 backporting... This "out of the blue" notice
to alpha 2.5 seems to me some method to "stall" or circumvent action in that
direction by changing the goalposts...
-0.9
> On Aug 26, 2015, at 11:21 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> I'm planning to tag trunk on 11 Sept to get 2.5.0 and mod_h2 into users hands ASAP and collect feedback on that module ahead of any merges back into the stable 2.4.x branch.
>
> Concerns/Questions/Roadblocks/Showstoppers?
Re: Intent to Tag 2.5.0 for -alpha consideration
Posted by Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>.
From my side it's a "go ahead". We will obviously find bugs in such a new module impacting potentially all requests, but the tests we have are stable. So, I think, getting it into more peoples hands is the way forward.
Btw. if you review the core_protocols.patch and find anything preventing a backport, please let me know asap. I personally would like to avoid a repeat of the ALPN back porting stop due to lack of time to find a proper solution.
Cheers,
Stefan
> Am 26.08.2015 um 17:21 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
>
> I'm planning to tag trunk on 11 Sept to get 2.5.0 and mod_h2 into users hands ASAP and collect feedback on that module ahead of any merges back into the stable 2.4.x branch.
>
> Concerns/Questions/Roadblocks/Showstoppers?
<green/>bytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany
Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Re: Intent to Tag 2.5.0 for -alpha consideration
Posted by olli hauer <oh...@gmx.de>.
On 2015-08-26 17:21, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> I'm planning to tag trunk on 11 Sept to get 2.5.0 and mod_h2 into users
> hands ASAP and collect feedback on that module ahead of any merges back
> into the stable 2.4.x branch.
>
> Concerns/Questions/Roadblocks/Showstoppers?
>
In case there will be a src tar file I'm happy to create a FreeBSD port for 2.5.0.
It would be nice to have some small fixes for acinclude.m4 (PR 58126) applied before tagging 2.5.0 to silence warnings about deprecated notations.
--
olli