You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2006/07/24 16:12:43 UTC
proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
JFC are working on the AJP stuff and as soon as they
commit their changes, I'll be adding in my balancer set
patches (to trunk).
But if 2.2.3 is expected to be sooner than that, maybe
the hot-standby is enough for now...
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Jean-frederic Clere <jf...@gmail.com>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
> are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
> that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
> JFC are working on the AJP stuff and as soon as they
> commit their changes, I'll be adding in my balancer set
> patches (to trunk).
For me I am busy with the code for the branch httpd-proxy-scoreboard ;-)
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
>
> But if 2.2.3 is expected to be sooner than that, maybe
> the hot-standby is enough for now...
>
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 24.07.2006 16:12, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
> are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
> that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
> JFC are working on the AJP stuff and as soon as they
> commit their changes, I'll be adding in my balancer set
> patches (to trunk).
>
> But if 2.2.3 is expected to be sooner than that, maybe
> the hot-standby is enough for now...
>
Although I love to see this stuff backported to 2.2.x, 2.2.3 is expected
sooner and we should not rush the review of these changes. Better wait
for 2.2.4 than introducing new bugs to 2.2.3.
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
>
> But if any of the proxy/balancer devs know of actual showstoppers, real
> regressions, it would be great to get that patched by sometime tomorrow.
>
I doubt thats realistic (tomorrow).
Beside the code added to the head it needs to be
backported to 2.2 branch and tested.
I hope we won't wait for the 2.2.4 as long as 2.2.3
Regards,
Mladen.
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to T&R by Wednesday, it's
>> just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
>>
>
>
> We can then do a quick 2.2.4 in a month to capture the balancer
> and other goodies.
>
That would be great.
There are few things that would need a thorough testing,
and all that could not be done without future delaying
the 2.2.3 release.
Regards,
Mladen.
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jul 24, 2006, at 12:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
>> are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
>> that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
>> JFC are working on the AJP stuff and as soon as they
>> commit their changes, I'll be adding in my balancer set
>> patches (to trunk).
>
> All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to T&R by Wednesday, it's
> just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
>
Let's not rush the backports then. +1 for T&R on Wednesday, since
there are some things that *really* need to be released.
We can then do a quick 2.2.4 in a month to capture the balancer
and other goodies.
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> I used the apr from trunk like the buildscript on mac sugested.
> I'll use trunk again tonight on the windows machine
FYI any 1.2.x release or later 1.x release should be fine. 1.2.{latest}
is baseline and likely to be what we ship with for a while.
Bill
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
I used the apr from trunk like the buildscript on mac sugested.
I'll use trunk again tonight on the windows machine
On 7/25/06, Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
>
> Please advise which APR, APR-UTIL to build against.
>
> Steffen
>
> http://www.apachelounge.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 20:33
> Subject: Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
>
>
> > Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> >> <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Tag & Roll :) It's similar, but there's no 'release' till it has
> >> the votes.
> >>
> >> Ooh so close ^^
> >> So tag -> source code is tarred?
> >
> > tag -> we bump versions and dup from httpd/branches/2.x.0 to
> > httpd/tags/2.x.y
> >
> >> Roll -> source is put on server for testing
> >
> > roll -> roll the tag into a tarball and deposit to
> > httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> >
> >> -- voting --
> >> Release or no release?
> >
> > +/- 1 to release, must have 3 +1 and more + than - from committee folk
> > (who do read non-committee feedback too).
> >
> >> Ok so what do i check out? Trunk? 2.2 branch?
> >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
~Jorge
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 25.07.2006 13:00, Steffen wrote:
> Please advise which APR, APR-UTIL to build against.
Either use trunk or the latest 1.2.x release (thats what I do).
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
Please advise which APR, APR-UTIL to build against.
Steffen
http://www.apachelounge.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 20:33
Subject: Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
> Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>>
>> On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
>> <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Tag & Roll :) It's similar, but there's no 'release' till it has
>> the votes.
>>
>> Ooh so close ^^
>> So tag -> source code is tarred?
>
> tag -> we bump versions and dup from httpd/branches/2.x.0 to
> httpd/tags/2.x.y
>
>> Roll -> source is put on server for testing
>
> roll -> roll the tag into a tarball and deposit to
> httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
>> -- voting --
>> Release or no release?
>
> +/- 1 to release, must have 3 +1 and more + than - from committee folk
> (who do read non-committee feedback too).
>
>> Ok so what do i check out? Trunk? 2.2 branch?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/
>
>
>
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 7/24/06, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 07/24/2006 10:28 PM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> > Ah that cleares it up :)
> > Is there any dev@httpd jargon page ;)
>
> I think not, but feel free to propose a patch for the
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/
> section or a subpage :-).
>
> >
> > i'll try to do a svn co
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ and compile
> on
> > mac os x tomorrow at work and maybe one later on windows once i get
> home.
> >
> > thinks to look fore are compile errors and functionallity of general
> > modules?
>
> Compiler warnings are also interesting.
Oh well if i try a Win64 build i usually get over a 1000th! But I supose
those are normal i get them with all Win64 stuff usually warning about
longs,int,... too int64 conversions, i'll copy one of them when i do the
test
> other specific things to look for?
>
> Play around with it, if you have time and resources, use it for internal
> test
> systems, etc. The more you can make use of it the better.
ok i'll see how mutch time i can pull free at work and later at home.
>
> > Since i'm no commiter... If i send in a diff file to the this list...
> would
> > be the correct course of action?
>
> Send patches either to this list or open a bug report in bugzilla and
> attach it.
> I prefer having a bug report because it makes references to the problem
> easier
> in commit and CHANGES logs.
> But of course sometimes patches need to be discussed on the list. If you
> feel the
> need for discussion on your patch please do it here and not in bugzilla.
> Feel free to bug us on the list or via the report from time to time if a
> patch
> gets stalled. Remember the three P for patch proposals from
> non-committers:
I'd prefur to send discussed it first since I've never done any coding in c,
I'm at the point now where i'm confortable reading and making some small
changes.
but seems to work fine on 2.2.2 but that was hard coded...
So i'll google around and see how i can detect this dynamicly.
Patient, Polite, Persistent :-)
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>
>
--
~Jorge
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 07/24/2006 10:28 PM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> Ah that cleares it up :)
> Is there any dev@httpd jargon page ;)
I think not, but feel free to propose a patch for the http://httpd.apache.org/dev/
section or a subpage :-).
>
> i'll try to do a svn co
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ and compile on
> mac os x tomorrow at work and maybe one later on windows once i get home.
>
> thinks to look fore are compile errors and functionallity of general
> modules?
Compiler warnings are also interesting.
> other specific things to look for?
Play around with it, if you have time and resources, use it for internal test
systems, etc. The more you can make use of it the better.
>
> Since i'm no commiter... If i send in a diff file to the this list... would
> be the correct course of action?
Send patches either to this list or open a bug report in bugzilla and attach it.
I prefer having a bug report because it makes references to the problem easier
in commit and CHANGES logs.
But of course sometimes patches need to be discussed on the list. If you feel the
need for discussion on your patch please do it here and not in bugzilla.
Feel free to bug us on the list or via the report from time to time if a patch
gets stalled. Remember the three P for patch proposals from non-committers:
Patient, Polite, Persistent :-)
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
Ah that cleares it up :)
Is there any dev@httpd jargon page ;)
i'll try to do a svn co
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ and compile on
mac os x tomorrow at work and maybe one later on windows once i get home.
thinks to look fore are compile errors and functionallity of general
modules?
other specific things to look for?
ps: did the bug in the windows platform identifier get fixed?
If not i'll see if i can't make a patch file just afther 2.2.3 is released
to the masses so it can make it into 2.2.4 :) I changed it on a few builds a
made.
Since i'm no commiter... If i send in a diff file to the this list... would
be the correct course of action?
On 7/24/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> >
> > On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> > <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Tag & Roll :) It's similar, but there's no 'release' till it has
> > the votes.
> >
> > Ooh so close ^^
> > So tag -> source code is tarred?
>
> tag -> we bump versions and dup from httpd/branches/2.x.0 to
> httpd/tags/2.x.y
>
> > Roll -> source is put on server for testing
>
> roll -> roll the tag into a tarball and deposit to
> httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> > -- voting --
> > Release or no release?
>
> +/- 1 to release, must have 3 +1 and more + than - from committee folk
> (who do read non-committee feedback too).
>
> > Ok so what do i check out? Trunk? 2.2 branch?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/
>
>
>
--
~Jorge
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>
> On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
>
> Tag & Roll :) It's similar, but there's no 'release' till it has
> the votes.
>
> Ooh so close ^^
> So tag -> source code is tarred?
tag -> we bump versions and dup from httpd/branches/2.x.0 to httpd/tags/2.x.y
> Roll -> source is put on server for testing
roll -> roll the tag into a tarball and deposit to httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> -- voting --
> Release or no release?
+/- 1 to release, must have 3 +1 and more + than - from committee folk
(who do read non-committee feedback too).
> Ok so what do i check out? Trunk? 2.2 branch?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 7/24/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> >
> > On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> > <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
> >
> > All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to T&R by Wednesday,
> it's
> > just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really
> :)
> >
> > T&R = Tag and release right?
>
> Tag & Roll :) It's similar, but there's no 'release' till it has the
> votes.
Ooh so close ^^
So tag -> source code is tarred?
Roll -> source is put on server for testing
-- voting --
Release or no release?
> Same voting rules apply? no member input is welcome but votes don't count?
>
> Right - especially people on esoteric platforms. FWIW - we are also glad
> when folks see these notes and take a look at the svn stable branch and
> try
> building from it, so we discover any problems before the tag.
Ok so what do i check out? Trunk? 2.2 branch?
> Hopefully we can get one of these released every 3-6 weeks instead of
> > every 3-6 months, and there shouldn't be much wait for users to get
> > the new balancer options in their hands. We can't even get a normal
> > httpd release into users' hands very often, never mind interesting
> > subprojects ;-)
> >
> > Actually 2.2.2 was such a great release, If all 2.2 releases could be
> > like that that would be very sweet.
> > If it aint broken or exploidable don't patch it... unless there is a
> > huge huge list of new features and small non important fixes afcource.
>
> Of course ;-) The idea is to pick up the release you want, although
> things
> have been in more of a you-must-update mode for a while. I'd like to see
> a release in the next few months that is purely for the fun of getting the
> newest features.
>
New stuff is good ^^ but i remember some 2.0 release where just one or 2 big
bug fixes that got released a few months apart and that was kind of ugh i
just compile the stuff and all the extra modules, now i have to start over
^^
--
~Jorge
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>
> On 7/24/06, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> <ma...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
>
> All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to T&R by Wednesday, it's
> just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
>
> T&R = Tag and release right?
Tag & Roll :) It's similar, but there's no 'release' till it has the votes.
> Same voting rules apply? no member input is welcome but votes don't count?
Right - especially people on esoteric platforms. FWIW - we are also glad
when folks see these notes and take a look at the svn stable branch and try
building from it, so we discover any problems before the tag.
> Hopefully we can get one of these released every 3-6 weeks instead of
> every 3-6 months, and there shouldn't be much wait for users to get
> the new balancer options in their hands. We can't even get a normal
> httpd release into users' hands very often, never mind interesting
> subprojects ;-)
>
> Actually 2.2.2 was such a great release, If all 2.2 releases could be
> like that that would be very sweet.
> If it aint broken or exploidable don't patch it... unless there is a
> huge huge list of new features and small non important fixes afcource.
Of course ;-) The idea is to pick up the release you want, although things
have been in more of a you-must-update mode for a while. I'd like to see
a release in the next few months that is purely for the fun of getting the
newest features.
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 7/24/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to T&R by Wednesday, it's
> just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
T&R = Tag and release right?
Same voting rules apply? no member input is welcome but votes don't count?
Hopefully we can get one of these released every 3-6 weeks instead of
> every 3-6 months, and there shouldn't be much wait for users to get
> the new balancer options in their hands. We can't even get a normal
> httpd release into users' hands very often, never mind interesting
> subprojects ;-)
>
>
Actually 2.2.2 was such a great release, If all 2.2 releases could be like
that that would be very sweet.
If it aint broken or exploidable don't patch it... unless there is a huge
huge list of new features and small non important fixes afcource.
--
~Jorge
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
Nick Kew wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 11:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
>
>> There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
>> and spread over the multiple svn commits.
>> How we should deal with that?
>> Having multiple backports or a single one?
>
> IMO if we try and deal with that for a security release this week,
> we'll botch it. Better to propose backports with a view to 2.2.4.
>
Right. I suppose we agreed to have a 2.2.4 in a lesser time frame
then 2.2.3, so that's fine.
> As for number of backports, the ease (or otherwise) of reviewing
> it is the most important criterion. So perhaps group closely
> related changes in a single proposal, but split any that are
> only loosely related.
>
Hmm. Lots of people participated. I'm not sure how to group the
patches that were done during the last few months.
I suppose we can simply state the patches made and vote for the
entire bunch cause they are dependent on each other.
Since in none of those patches are 2.3 API dependent,
there is nothing to 'backport' that would require the
different code from the one that is in the HEAD.
Regards,
Mladen.
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 07/26/2006 12:07 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 11:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
>
>
>>There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
>>and spread over the multiple svn commits.
>>How we should deal with that?
>>Having multiple backports or a single one?
>
>
> IMO if we try and deal with that for a security release this week,
> we'll botch it. Better to propose backports with a view to 2.2.4.
+1. There is no need to have the same timely distance between 2.2.3 and
2.2.4 as between 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. So lets do 2.2.3 without them,
review them carefully and push out 2.2.4. I guess if we get all these
backported it justifies a new minor release anyway
>
> As for number of backports, the ease (or otherwise) of reviewing
> it is the most important criterion. So perhaps group closely
> related changes in a single proposal, but split any that are
> only loosely related.
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Wednesday 26 July 2006 11:02, Mladen Turk wrote:
> There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
> and spread over the multiple svn commits.
> How we should deal with that?
> Having multiple backports or a single one?
IMO if we try and deal with that for a security release this week,
we'll botch it. Better to propose backports with a view to 2.2.4.
As for number of backports, the ease (or otherwise) of reviewing
it is the most important criterion. So perhaps group closely
related changes in a single proposal, but split any that are
only loosely related.
--
Nick Kew
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by Mladen Turk <mt...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to T&R by Wednesday, it's
>> just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
>
> Just to make sure 2.2.3 and 2.0.59 are rock solid, I'll slide this to
> Thursday morning. Please get your backports committed ASAP so folks on
> Wed night catch any troubles on branches/2.0.x or branches/2.2.x
>
There are lots of things to backport. IMHO its the entire HEAD,
and spread over the multiple svn commits.
How we should deal with that?
Having multiple backports or a single one?
The patches before my addition for cping/cpong, that BTW is
configurable, and as such bares no regression, are tested but
there were no backport requests for them, neither they are
backported, like Jim's hot standby, etc...
Regards,
Mladen.
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to T&R by Wednesday, it's
> just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
Just to make sure 2.2.3 and 2.0.59 are rock solid, I'll slide this to
Thursday morning. Please get your backports committed ASAP so folks on
Wed night catch any troubles on branches/2.0.x or branches/2.2.x
Re: proxy balancer backports for 2.2.3
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I don't want the 2.2.3 release to be held up too much, but there
> are some things being worked on in the proxy balancer code
> that would be useful to be available in 2.2.3. Mladen and
> JFC are working on the AJP stuff and as soon as they
> commit their changes, I'll be adding in my balancer set
> patches (to trunk).
All of this sounds great! But I'm planning to T&R by Wednesday, it's
just been way too long since we've had a release. Pathetic really :)
Hopefully we can get one of these released every 3-6 weeks instead of
every 3-6 months, and there shouldn't be much wait for users to get
the new balancer options in their hands. We can't even get a normal
httpd release into users' hands very often, never mind interesting
subprojects ;-)
But if any of the proxy/balancer devs know of actual showstoppers, real
regressions, it would be great to get that patched by sometime tomorrow.
Bill