You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Daniel Ruggeri <dr...@primary.net> on 2019/01/17 17:13:57 UTC
[VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.28:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
[ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
sha1: 87d389fca46620ac165f8d659ba0bc8180532114 *httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
sha256: 216e3ee1dbd8d62f16155dff7a8aac7c6dbc6532954bec6cb8966a46f9819a23
*httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <dr...@primary.net>.
On 2019-01-17 11:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Shouldn't this be 2.4.38??
>
>> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:13 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, all;
>> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>>
>> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
>> candidate tarball as 2.4.28:
>> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
>> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>>
>> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
>> sha1: 87d389fca46620ac165f8d659ba0bc8180532114 *httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
>> sha256:
>> 216e3ee1dbd8d62f16155dff7a8aac7c6dbc6532954bec6cb8966a46f9819a23
>> *httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Ruggeri
Ahh!!!!! Another typo! Please disregard this thread - will redo with the
correct version.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
Sorry make the same mistake :)
See no tarball at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I was used to see the URL http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ also there
no tarball
Also in SVN and Subject of this mail I see 2.4.28 instead of 2.4.38
On 17-01-19 18:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Shouldn't this be 2.4.38??
>
>> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:13 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, all;
>> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>>
>> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate tarball as 2.4.28:
>> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
>> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>>
>> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
>> sha1: 87d389fca46620ac165f8d659ba0bc8180532114 *httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
>> sha256: 216e3ee1dbd8d62f16155dff7a8aac7c6dbc6532954bec6cb8966a46f9819a23 *httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Shouldn't this be 2.4.38??
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:13 PM, Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net> wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate tarball as 2.4.28:
> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>
> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
> sha1: 87d389fca46620ac165f8d659ba0bc8180532114 *httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
> sha256: 216e3ee1dbd8d62f16155dff7a8aac7c6dbc6532954bec6cb8966a46f9819a23 *httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:44 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem.
> There is,
> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real"
> 2.4.28 tag... :(
Not destroyed, as ylavic observed.
Nothing gets destroyed in revision control without a ton of extra effort
(at least not in subversion... git is another story.)
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <dr...@primary.net>.
Thank you, folks. I apologize again for the embarrassing mistake.
Will be sending along the updated vote email in a few seconds.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 2019-01-17 12:30, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> We should at the same 2.4.x state as before the release try now, I
> think the script(s) can be restarted with the correct tag/version
> (2.4.38! ;) ) as if it were the first time.
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:05 PM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> An aside r.e. subversion;
>>
>> Just please don't do what gstein has warned us against. I've performed
>> the ill-advised jump-over abandoned work in the past;
>> svn rm ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
>> svn cp ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk@123456 ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
>> attempting to drop activity between 123457 and present. Greg advised
>> us this turns out to do some ugly rebasing leaving a very ugly mess of
>> records in the underlying database. Anyone from subversion team could
>> give a better explanation why this is badness. This might look like
>> a reversion, but don't do this.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:00 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It's subversion, not git - we can always revert ;p
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
We should at the same 2.4.x state as before the release try now, I
think the script(s) can be restarted with the correct tag/version
(2.4.38! ;) ) as if it were the first time.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:05 PM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> An aside r.e. subversion;
>
> Just please don't do what gstein has warned us against. I've performed
> the ill-advised jump-over abandoned work in the past;
> svn rm ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
> svn cp ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk@123456 ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
> attempting to drop activity between 123457 and present. Greg advised
> us this turns out to do some ugly rebasing leaving a very ugly mess of
> records in the underlying database. Anyone from subversion team could
> give a better explanation why this is badness. This might look like
> a reversion, but don't do this.
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:00 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's subversion, not git - we can always revert ;p
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
An aside r.e. subversion;
Just please don't do what gstein has warned us against. I've performed
the ill-advised jump-over abandoned work in the past;
svn rm ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
svn cp ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk@123456 ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
attempting to drop activity between 123457 and present. Greg advised
us this turns out to do some ugly rebasing leaving a very ugly mess of
records in the underlying database. Anyone from subversion team could
give a better explanation why this is badness. This might look like
a reversion, but don't do this.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:00 PM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> It's subversion, not git - we can always revert ;p
>
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 1/17/19 6:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Ahhh good.
>
>> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:46 PM, Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem. There is,
>>> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real" 2.4.28 tag... :(
>>
>> Fortunately it just created tags/2.4.28/2.4.x since tags/2.4.28 existed already.
>
It's subversion, not git - we can always revert ;p
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Ahhh good.
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:46 PM, Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem. There is,
>> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real" 2.4.28 tag... :(
>
> Fortunately it just created tags/2.4.28/2.4.x since tags/2.4.28 existed already.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem. There is,
> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real" 2.4.28 tag... :(
Fortunately it just created tags/2.4.28/2.4.x since tags/2.4.28 existed already.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem. There is,
in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real" 2.4.28 tag... :(
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.28
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
See no tarball at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
Also in SVN and Subject of theis mauk I see 2.4.28 instead of 2.4.28
On 17-01-19 18:13, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.28:
> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>
> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
> sha1: 87d389fca46620ac165f8d659ba0bc8180532114 *httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
> sha256:
> 216e3ee1dbd8d62f16155dff7a8aac7c6dbc6532954bec6cb8966a46f9819a23
> *httpd-2.4.28.tar.gz
>