You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org> on 2002/09/15 08:52:36 UTC
Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?
On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 02:40:35AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> I've been willing to accept MMN bumps thus far because 1.3 also had a
> number of MMN bumps in its infancy. But we're rapidly approaching the
> point where 2.0.x needs to pick an MMN (and all that that entails) and
> stick with it, IMHO.
Then, we as a group need to open 2.1 when we do that.
So far, there doesn't seem to be support for that. In fact, it seems
there are lots of people against a 2.1 tree. -- justin
Re: Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?
Posted by "Paul J. Reder" <re...@remulak.net>.
rbb@apache.org wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 02:40:35AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>>
>>>I've been willing to accept MMN bumps thus far because 1.3 also had a
>>>number of MMN bumps in its infancy. But we're rapidly approaching the
>>>point where 2.0.x needs to pick an MMN (and all that that entails) and
>>>stick with it, IMHO.
>>>
>>Then, we as a group need to open 2.1 when we do that.
>>
>>So far, there doesn't seem to be support for that. In fact, it seems
>>there are lots of people against a 2.1 tree. -- justin
>>
>
> We should never just pick an MMN and stick with it. When the source code
> is ready, that will happen automatically.
>
> As for people not being willing to accept the MMN issue as a reason to
> destabilize the tree, you're right, I'm not. We aren't a commercial
> venture. We do what is right, because it is the right thing to do.
> ...
> Ryan
I agree with Ryan here.
It is my feeling that, regardless if we branch to 2.1 or bump 2.0 MMN,
module developers will get the idea that 2.0 is a moving target (or a
dead branch and 2.1 is moving).
To the extent that 2.0 is lacking in performance/stability/security/*vital*
features, I think they should be fixed/added in the 2.0 tree, even if that
means a MMN bump. Things that are nifty new features (either radical or
nifty-and-disruptive-but-not-required) should probably be planned for a 2.1
branch once 2.0 has stabilized. The difficulty is in coming to consensus
about what is important enough to add in to 2.0 (even at the expense of
MMN bumps and perceived instability) vs. putting into a plan for future
implementation in a new branch...
When 2.0 is "good enough" to attract module developers and users (i.e.
performance/stability/security/*attractive* features are present) then
we should talk about moving 2.0 into a stable state and branching new
developement to a 2.1 branch. Right now, IMHO, 2.0 is not ready for that.
Like Ryan said, "When the source code is ready, that [MMN stability] will
happen automatically." I don't think we're there yet.
--
Paul J. Reder
-----------------------------------------------------------
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each
citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do
his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
-- Albert Einstein
RE: bin compat/Announcement.txt [was Desire for 2.1]
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 09:02 AM 9/16/2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>+1
>
> > As a (l)user, I bumped into the MMN "issue" with mod_jk between 2.0.39 and
> > 2.0.40. Given that there must be many people that would
> > experience the same, can this become a FAQ? Something like:
+1 to that, and then some:
Announcement.txt should CLEARLY identify which versions the given
release is backwards-compatible to.
E.g. "Apache 2.0.41 is NOT binary compatible with existing Apache 2.0.40
modules. Do not replace an older Apache installation without first locating
replacement binaries built for Apache 2.0.41".
Bill
Re: New FAQ, WAS: RE: Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits
too late?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
OK, I'll put it in section "Error Log Messages and Problems Starting
Apache" of Apache 1.3 FAQ. Although, I think that Apache 2.0 should
start getting some entries. It makes things more self sufficient. I'll
also have a look into updating the glossary.
Thanks,
Bojan
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 08:31, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On 17 Sep 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>
> > Under which category do I put this FAQ? The only category (for now)
> > seems to be Support, and this is not a support issue... General?
>
> The 2.0 FAQ is not really a live beast. If you'd like to add a category
> for this ("Modules", or "Starting Apache", or ?) go ahead. The
> other option is to add it to the 1.3 FAQ. 1.3 has the same issues; it
> just so happens that the MMN hasn't changed in a while.
>
> The 2.0 glossary could also use an entry for MMN.
>
> Joshua.
Re: New FAQ, WAS: RE: Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits
too late?
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On 17 Sep 2002, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Under which category do I put this FAQ? The only category (for now)
> seems to be Support, and this is not a support issue... General?
The 2.0 FAQ is not really a live beast. If you'd like to add a category
for this ("Modules", or "Starting Apache", or ?) go ahead. The
other option is to add it to the 1.3 FAQ. 1.3 has the same issues; it
just so happens that the MMN hasn't changed in a while.
The 2.0 glossary could also use an entry for MMN.
Joshua.
Re: New FAQ, WAS: RE: Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits
too late?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
Under which category do I put this FAQ? The only category (for now)
seems to be Support, and this is not a support issue... General?
Bojan
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 00:30, Sander Striker wrote:
> > From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:bill@wstoddard.com]
> > Sent: 16 September 2002 16:03
>
> > +1
>
> I'll see your +1 and raise +1.
>
> Sander
New FAQ, WAS: RE: Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:bill@wstoddard.com]
> Sent: 16 September 2002 16:03
> +1
I'll see your +1 and raise +1.
Sander
> > As a (l)user, I bumped into the MMN "issue" with mod_jk between 2.0.39 and
> > 2.0.40. Given that there must be many people that would
> > experience the same, can
> > this become a FAQ? Something like:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Q. What is the Module Magic Number (MMN)?
> >
> > A. Module Magic Number is a constant defined in Apache source
> > that is associated
> > with binary compatibility of modules. It is changed when internal Apache
> > structures, function calls and other significant parts of API
> > change in such a
> > way that binary compatiblity cannot be guaranteed any more. On
> > MMN change, all
> > third party modules have to be at least recompiled, sometimes
> > even slightly
> > changed in order to work with the new version of Apache.
> >
> > If you're getting the following error message: "module
> > <module-name> is not
> > compatible with this version of Apache" in you error log, contact
> > the vendor of
> > the module for the new binary, or compile it if you have access
> > to the source code.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Bojan
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> >
>
RE: Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
+1
> As a (l)user, I bumped into the MMN "issue" with mod_jk between 2.0.39 and
> 2.0.40. Given that there must be many people that would
> experience the same, can
> this become a FAQ? Something like:
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Q. What is the Module Magic Number (MMN)?
>
> A. Module Magic Number is a constant defined in Apache source
> that is associated
> with binary compatibility of modules. It is changed when internal Apache
> structures, function calls and other significant parts of API
> change in such a
> way that binary compatiblity cannot be guaranteed any more. On
> MMN change, all
> third party modules have to be at least recompiled, sometimes
> even slightly
> changed in order to work with the new version of Apache.
>
> If you're getting the following error message: "module
> <module-name> is not
> compatible with this version of Apache" in you error log, contact
> the vendor of
> the module for the new binary, or compile it if you have access
> to the source code.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Bojan
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
>
Re: Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
Quoting rbb@apache.org:
> We should never just pick an MMN and stick with it. When the source code
> is ready, that will happen automatically.
>
> As for people not being willing to accept the MMN issue as a reason to
> destabilize the tree, you're right, I'm not. We aren't a commercial
> venture. We do what is right, because it is the right thing to do.
As a (l)user, I bumped into the MMN "issue" with mod_jk between 2.0.39 and
2.0.40. Given that there must be many people that would experience the same, can
this become a FAQ? Something like:
--------------------------------------------------
Q. What is the Module Magic Number (MMN)?
A. Module Magic Number is a constant defined in Apache source that is associated
with binary compatibility of modules. It is changed when internal Apache
structures, function calls and other significant parts of API change in such a
way that binary compatiblity cannot be guaranteed any more. On MMN change, all
third party modules have to be at least recompiled, sometimes even slightly
changed in order to work with the new version of Apache.
If you're getting the following error message: "module <module-name> is not
compatible with this version of Apache" in you error log, contact the vendor of
the module for the new binary, or compile it if you have access to the source code.
--------------------------------------------------
Bojan
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Re: Desire for 2.1 was Re: mod_custom_log exits too late?
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 02:40:35AM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > I've been willing to accept MMN bumps thus far because 1.3 also had a
> > number of MMN bumps in its infancy. But we're rapidly approaching the
> > point where 2.0.x needs to pick an MMN (and all that that entails) and
> > stick with it, IMHO.
>
> Then, we as a group need to open 2.1 when we do that.
>
> So far, there doesn't seem to be support for that. In fact, it seems
> there are lots of people against a 2.1 tree. -- justin
We should never just pick an MMN and stick with it. When the source code
is ready, that will happen automatically.
As for people not being willing to accept the MMN issue as a reason to
destabilize the tree, you're right, I'm not. We aren't a commercial
venture. We do what is right, because it is the right thing to do.
I don't really care when you commit new code, but don't try to commit it
in the last few days/hours of a release, and then pretend that the release
is still GA quality. If you want to add brand new code (as opposed to a
small bug fix) at the the of the release, then go ahead and add it, but
make the release a beta or alpha. This is why we went to the new system.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
550 Jean St
Oakland CA 94610
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------