You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net> on 2002/04/05 19:15:28 UTC
I WANT A GA release
I think 2.0.34 is good enough for a GA release. There are two major
bugs that must be fixed.
1) error pages have wrong content-type. Wrowe is working on a fix.
2) autoindex problems. I have fixed the showstopper on my system with
a one-line patch. I just need to fix the HEADER/README ordering
problem. Expect a commit within the hour to fix autoindex completely.
What else would we need to do to get a GA out of 2.0.34???????
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom rbb@covalent.net
645 Howard St. rbb@apache.org
San Francisco, CA
RE: I WANT A GA release
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
I'll tag 2.0.35 as soon as Will commits his fix. Then we can quickly
bump apache.org.
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom rbb@covalent.net
645 Howard St. rbb@apache.org
San Francisco, CA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: trawick@rdu88-250-035.nc.rr.com [mailto:trawick@rdu88-250-
> 035.nc.rr.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Trawick
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 10:30 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: I WANT A GA release
>
> "Ryan Bloom" <rb...@covalent.net> writes:
>
> > I think 2.0.34 is good enough for a GA release. There are two major
> > bugs that must be fixed.
> >
> > 1) error pages have wrong content-type. Wrowe is working on a fix.
> >
> > 2) autoindex problems. I have fixed the showstopper on my system
with
> > a one-line patch. I just need to fix the HEADER/README ordering
> > problem. Expect a commit within the hour to fix autoindex
completely.
> >
> > What else would we need to do to get a GA out of 2.0.34???????
>
> I'd +1 a GA of current code once
>
> 1) HEAD is retagged as 2.0.35
>
> and
>
> 2) it lasts at least four hours on apache.org without showing new
> (w.r.t. 2.0.32) brokenness or coredumps or anybody's beeper going
> off because it loops
>
> and
>
> 3) folks give it a reasonable test on a variety of platforms (like we
> would do a beta); I'm sure we could get Linux, FreeBSD
(apache.org),
> Win32, Solaris, AIX, OS/390, and Mac OS X covered in half a day
>
> --
> Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
> Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: I WANT A GA release
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
"Ryan Bloom" <rb...@covalent.net> writes:
> I think 2.0.34 is good enough for a GA release. There are two major
> bugs that must be fixed.
>
> 1) error pages have wrong content-type. Wrowe is working on a fix.
>
> 2) autoindex problems. I have fixed the showstopper on my system with
> a one-line patch. I just need to fix the HEADER/README ordering
> problem. Expect a commit within the hour to fix autoindex completely.
>
> What else would we need to do to get a GA out of 2.0.34???????
I'd +1 a GA of current code once
1) HEAD is retagged as 2.0.35
and
2) it lasts at least four hours on apache.org without showing new
(w.r.t. 2.0.32) brokenness or coredumps or anybody's beeper going
off because it loops
and
3) folks give it a reasonable test on a variety of platforms (like we
would do a beta); I'm sure we could get Linux, FreeBSD (apache.org),
Win32, Solaris, AIX, OS/390, and Mac OS X covered in half a day
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: I WANT A GA release
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:15:28AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> I think 2.0.34 is good enough for a GA release. There are two major
> bugs that must be fixed.
>
> 1) error pages have wrong content-type. Wrowe is working on a fix.
>
> 2) autoindex problems. I have fixed the showstopper on my system with
> a one-line patch. I just need to fix the HEADER/README ordering
> problem. Expect a commit within the hour to fix autoindex completely.
>
> What else would we need to do to get a GA out of 2.0.34???????
I've been comfortable with calling the feature set we have 2.0-gold for
awhile now, so for me it's just a matter of resolving any outstanding
bugs.
If I can get some time to test today I'd be in favor of pushing .34
for GA.
-aaron
Re: I WANT A GA release
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:38:25AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Agreed, 2.0.34 would need to become HEAD to make this happen.
>
> -1. .34 has changed too many times in the last week for me to keep
> track of it all. Tag HEAD .35 and I'll test that.
+1 to Aaron's suggestion
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: I WANT A GA release
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:38:25AM -0800, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Agreed, 2.0.34 would need to become HEAD to make this happen.
-1. .34 has changed too many times in the last week for me to keep
track of it all. Tag HEAD .35 and I'll test that.
-aaron
RE: I WANT A GA release
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
Agreed, 2.0.34 would need to become HEAD to make this happen.
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom rbb@covalent.net
645 Howard St. rbb@apache.org
San Francisco, CA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Pane [mailto:bpane@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:42 AM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: I WANT A GA release
>
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> >I think 2.0.34 is good enough for a GA release. There are two major
> >bugs that must be fixed.
> >
> >1) error pages have wrong content-type. Wrowe is working on a fix.
> >
> >2) autoindex problems. I have fixed the showstopper on my system
with
> >a one-line patch. I just need to fix the HEADER/README ordering
> >problem. Expect a commit within the hour to fix autoindex
completely.
> >
> >What else would we need to do to get a GA out of 2.0.34???????
> >
>
> We'd need to add 0.0.1 to it, at the very least. :-)
> It wasn't until 2.0.35 that the bucket free lists
> were added. Without that code, multiprocessor
> scalability isn't good enough to qualify as anything
> other than a beta release, IMO.
>
> --Brian
>
>
Re: I WANT A GA release
Posted by Brian Pane <bp...@pacbell.net>.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
>I think 2.0.34 is good enough for a GA release. There are two major
>bugs that must be fixed.
>
>1) error pages have wrong content-type. Wrowe is working on a fix.
>
>2) autoindex problems. I have fixed the showstopper on my system with
>a one-line patch. I just need to fix the HEADER/README ordering
>problem. Expect a commit within the hour to fix autoindex completely.
>
>What else would we need to do to get a GA out of 2.0.34???????
>
We'd need to add 0.0.1 to it, at the very least. :-)
It wasn't until 2.0.35 that the bucket free lists
were added. Without that code, multiprocessor
scalability isn't good enough to qualify as anything
other than a beta release, IMO.
--Brian
Re: I WANT A GA release
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> I think 2.0.34 is good enough for a GA release. There are two major
> bugs that must be fixed.
>
> 1) error pages have wrong content-type. Wrowe is working on a fix.
>
> 2) autoindex problems. I have fixed the showstopper on my system with
> a one-line patch. I just need to fix the HEADER/README ordering
> problem. Expect a commit within the hour to fix autoindex completely.
>
> What else would we need to do to get a GA out of 2.0.34???????
>
At the RM's descrition, I would like for the 2_0_34 tag to be moved to HEAD on
mod_mem_cache and mod_disk_cache. There are no changes that would impact the stability of
the server and we pick up a couple of bug fixes.
Bill