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 2016/03/23 11:56:47 UTC
Status for 2.4.20
Let's see: I recalled the vote for 2.4.19 because of a
single issue, basically related to a missing few lines in
a file which prevented building on Win. Nice, easy, simple
fix.
Now it appears that a slew of "fixes" related to Win have
been applied which, according to some, makes the whole build-
on-Win situation much much worse.
Now I have no idea what the status of HEAD for 2.4 is and,
as a result, we are delaying the T&R and eventual release of
2.4.19/20. All because a 4-line fix turned into a master-refactor
at the last minute.
I am tempted to revert 2.4 back...
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Let's see: I recalled the vote for 2.4.19 because of a
> single issue, basically related to a missing few lines in
> a file which prevented building on Win. Nice, easy, simple
> fix.
>
> Now it appears that a slew of "fixes" related to Win have
> been applied which, according to some, makes the whole build-
> on-Win situation much much worse.
>
> Now I have no idea what the status of HEAD for 2.4 is and,
> as a result, we are delaying the T&R and eventual release of
> 2.4.19/20. All because a 4-line fix turned into a master-refactor
> at the last minute.
>
>
Slightly off-topic: 2.4.x HEAD builds fine and serves pages with VS 2012
using the cmake build. (I was initially sidetracked by the need for a
higher level of nghttp2 to fix their Win32 linkage problem in APIs we
didn't use last time I built on Windows, then by trunk build problems.)
I am tempted to revert 2.4 back...
>
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>.
> Am 23.03.2016 um 11:56 schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>:
>
> Let's see: I recalled the vote for 2.4.19 because of a
> single issue, basically related to a missing few lines in
> a file which prevented building on Win. Nice, easy, simple
> fix.
>
> Now it appears that a slew of "fixes" related to Win have
> been applied which, according to some, makes the whole build-
> on-Win situation much much worse.
>
> Now I have no idea what the status of HEAD for 2.4 is and,
> as a result, we are delaying the T&R and eventual release of
> 2.4.19/20. All because a 4-line fix turned into a master-refactor
> at the last minute.
>
> I am tempted to revert 2.4 back...
Sorry about missing the initial 4 lines.
Being no Windows builder, but is the 2.4.19 + the missing
lines not the same mechanism that we shipped in 2.4.18?
If so, let's stick to it and defer any large-scale
improvements to a later point.
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>.
+1
Thanks!
> Am 28.03.2016 um 17:06 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
>
> @Everyone on this thread - keep it civil.
>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a release often mentality
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not…..
>>>
>>> It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.
>>
>> sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of the users, especially, the larger users.
>
> Precisely the point. If httpd were commercial software, there would only be
> one perspective, that of the largest users with fairly static deployments that
> demand very small deltas - those that ensure few if any regressions. Smaller
> or more nimble users who need the most recent features are neglected in that
> scenario.
>
> Instead httpd does not operate as commercial software, it is open source.
> When it breaks, you get to keep (and patch) all the pieces. That's the origin
> story of this software and our continued model for success. No amount of
> pleas that "it shouldn't be that way" are going to change the mindset of the
> project participants. Please remember you are a guest on this list.
>
> When we decided during 1.3.x that things were so shaky (third party module
> recompilation was frequently necessary during the early 1.3.0-1.3.14 versions)
> that we could do better for user communities.
>
> Therefore, when we released 2.0 as GA, we declared the ABI stable, and
> proceeded on ABI and API breaking work on a 2.1-dev trunk branch. We all
> agreed that 2.1 wouldn't be GA, but we would release 2.2.0 once we believed
> that branch was ready to be ABI-stable. That model continues to this day,
> breaking changes are on 2.5-dev in trunk, and we seek 100% compatibility
> on the 2.4.x branch. There were contentious discussions that led us to this
> model, but it was driven by competing interests by the developers of this
> project, who are also users --- as opposed to external "demands".
>
> We will seek to continue to release early and often, and one of our current
> faults is that we haven't been releasing 2.5-dev often enough to engage users
> in the next release series, but pouring most of our energy into wedging these
> changes back into the 2.4.x branch. But unlike commercial software and
> many OSS projects, we don't declare 2.4.0 to be "feature complete", and
> we continue to improve it in straightforward ways throughout the 2.4 lifetime.
>
> If you want to package a stable "product", you can follow the RedHat and
> others' model. Just to take that single example, httpd 2.4.3 is the released
> flavor by RedHat. They go to the extra effort to backport fixes-only and plan
> to support that version for some 10 years or so. That is why many larger
> users choose to stick with something like RHEL or CentOS or similar
> distributions which are feature-frozen and much more stable than an active
> product undergoing constant enhancement.
>
> Just to wrap up another tl;dr post... others offered you a different option,
> skip those versions which are too "experimental" for your tastes, and wait
> for bugs to shake out. We assert that 2.4.newest is the best available
> version, but in such a large, modular and flexible project, it's impossible
> to assure that a change set (release) will be an improvement for each and
> every use case.
>
> Use the version that is most appropriate to your use case, and seek a
> commercial product if you expect the sort of stasis that your protest
> appears to seek.
>
>
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Nick Edwards <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So after a thread stop message, why do you feel you need to troll bait them?
> It's clear they both agreed to ignore each other, it's been clear one party
> had no intention on keeping his word (having had myriad of clashes with the
> fool reindl myself on other lists I'm not at all surprised he expected it to
> all one way), so the other advises " gates of hell will open ", so, what's
> your angle?
My angle is that William's warning (seconded by mine, maybe
unnecessarily) also applies to the friend(s) of the one or the other
willing to continue on this road...
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Nick Edwards <ni...@gmail.com>.
So after a thread stop message, why do you feel you need to troll bait them?
It's clear they both agreed to ignore each other, it's been clear one party
had no intention on keeping his word (having had myriad of clashes with the
fool reindl myself on other lists I'm not at all surprised he expected it
to all one way), so the other advises " gates of hell will open ", so,
what's your angle? what's the point of your post, posts like yours only
invites trouble. If they don't want to adhere to thread stop William will
wield his big stick as he clams to have, their problem.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:49 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> > FULL STOP.
>
> Really, NOW, simply don't talk to each other here (this way at least,
> but anyway is fine too since it seems hopeless).
>
> You are able to block each other on your respective networks, well,
> keep reading your logs for bounced emails if it pleases you, but this
> list (or any @a.o one) is definitively not an loop-hole!
>
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:49 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> FULL STOP.
Really, NOW, simply don't talk to each other here (this way at least,
but anyway is fine too since it seems hopeless).
You are able to block each other on your respective networks, well,
keep reading your logs for bounced emails if it pleases you, but this
list (or any @a.o one) is definitively not an loop-hole!
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
FULL STOP.
The next person to demand the last word of this thread will be iptables
deleted
from existence at a.o. Can you all appreciate that ~2000 people have to
read
all of your pissing contests? This is simply not acceptable.
Be done with it.
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
your short memory returns again, thank you, as that terminates any and
all prior agreements we had about (not) responding to each other and
your diatribe, the flood gates have now opened.
But as for this post, so it seems I did, I probably stopped reading half
way, my care factor isnt all that high
On 29/03/2016 18:47, Reindl Harald wrote:
> you did
>
>
--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 29.03.2016 um 09:37 schrieb Noel Butler:
> On 29/03/2016 01:06, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>> @Everyone on this thread - keep it civil.
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net
>> <ma...@ausics.net>> wrote:
>>
>> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>
>> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler
>> <noel.butler@ausics.net <ma...@ausics.net>> wrote:
>>
>> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain
>> people push with a release often mentality
>>
>> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched
>> by any pending release, so lets get house in order S T A
>> B L E , then worry about releases, jesus christ, we are
>> not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to release every 3
>> or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not.....
>>
>>
>> It sounds like you're making drama where there is none.
>>
>> sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats
>> not of the users, especially, the larger users.
>>
> Going by this, I've not seen some posts, Bills reply makes it appear I
> said the above, which I didnt
you did
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Status for 2.4.20
Datum: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 21:58:18 +1000
Von: Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>
Antwort an: dev@httpd.apache.org
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push
with a release often mentality
AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending
release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry about
releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to
release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not.....
flame away... IDGAF
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Status for 2.4.20
Datum: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 13:13:33 +1000
Von: Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>
Antwort an: dev@httpd.apache.org
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
> It sounds like you're making drama where there is none.
sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of
the users, especially, the larger users.
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 29/03/2016 01:06, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> @Everyone on this thread - keep it civil.
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
>
> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a release often mentality
>
> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not.....
> It sounds like you're making drama where there is none.
sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not
of the users, especially, the larger users.
Precisely the point. If httpd were commercial software, there would
only be
one perspective, that of the largest users with fairly static
deployments that
demand very small deltas - those that ensure few if any regressions.
Smaller
or more nimble users who need the most recent features are neglected in
that
scenario.
Instead httpd does not operate as commercial software, it is open
source.
When it breaks, you get to keep (and patch) all the pieces. That's the
origin
story of this software and our continued model for success. No amount
of
pleas that "it shouldn't be that way" are going to change the mindset of
the
project participants. Please remember you are a guest on this list.
When we decided during 1.3.x that things were so shaky (third party
module
recompilation was frequently necessary during the early 1.3.0-1.3.14
versions)
that we could do better for user communities.
Therefore, when we released 2.0 as GA, we declared the ABI stable, and
proceeded on ABI and API breaking work on a 2.1-dev trunk branch. We
all
agreed that 2.1 wouldn't be GA, but we would release 2.2.0 once we
believed
that branch was ready to be ABI-stable. That model continues to this
day,
breaking changes are on 2.5-dev in trunk, and we seek 100% compatibility
on the 2.4.x branch. There were contentious discussions that led us to
this
model, but it was driven by competing interests by the developers of
this
project, who are also users --- as opposed to external "demands".
We will seek to continue to release early and often, and one of our
current
faults is that we haven't been releasing 2.5-dev often enough to engage
users
in the next release series, but pouring most of our energy into wedging
these
changes back into the 2.4.x branch. But unlike commercial software and
many OSS projects, we don't declare 2.4.0 to be "feature complete", and
we continue to improve it in straightforward ways throughout the 2.4
lifetime.
If you want to package a stable "product", you can follow the RedHat and
others' model. Just to take that single example, httpd 2.4.3 is the
released
flavor by RedHat. They go to the extra effort to backport fixes-only
and plan
to support that version for some 10 years or so. That is why many
larger
users choose to stick with something like RHEL or CentOS or similar
distributions which are feature-frozen and much more stable than an
active
product undergoing constant enhancement.
Just to wrap up another tl;dr post... others offered you a different
option,
skip those versions which are too "experimental" for your tastes, and
wait
for bugs to shake out. We assert that 2.4.newest is the best available
version, but in such a large, modular and flexible project, it's
impossible
to assure that a change set (release) will be an improvement for each
and
every use case.
Use the version that is most appropriate to your use case, and seek a
commercial product if you expect the sort of stasis that your protest
appears to seek.
Going by this, I've not seen some posts, Bills reply makes it appear I
said the above, which I didnt, but I'll leave it as I think this thread
has run its course anyway, I've put my comments forward on behalf of
myself and many admins, I accept you only see this as one opinion since
they are not posting here, next time it comes up, I'll put a call on the
other lists for every single one of them to sub to this list and put
their thoughts forward :)
--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you
best first read http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
@Everyone on this thread - keep it civil.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>
wrote:
> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
>> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
>>
>> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with
>>> a release often mentality
>>>
>>> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending
>>> release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry about
>>> releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to
>>> release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not…..
>>>
>>
>> It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.
>>
>
> sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of
> the users, especially, the larger users.
Precisely the point. If httpd were commercial software, there would only be
one perspective, that of the largest users with fairly static deployments
that
demand very small deltas - those that ensure few if any regressions.
Smaller
or more nimble users who need the most recent features are neglected in that
scenario.
Instead httpd does not operate as commercial software, it is open source.
When it breaks, you get to keep (and patch) all the pieces. That's the
origin
story of this software and our continued model for success. No amount of
pleas that "it shouldn't be that way" are going to change the mindset of the
project participants. Please remember you are a guest on this list.
When we decided during 1.3.x that things were so shaky (third party module
recompilation was frequently necessary during the early 1.3.0-1.3.14
versions)
that we could do better for user communities.
Therefore, when we released 2.0 as GA, we declared the ABI stable, and
proceeded on ABI and API breaking work on a 2.1-dev trunk branch. We all
agreed that 2.1 wouldn't be GA, but we would release 2.2.0 once we believed
that branch was ready to be ABI-stable. That model continues to this day,
breaking changes are on 2.5-dev in trunk, and we seek 100% compatibility
on the 2.4.x branch. There were contentious discussions that led us to this
model, but it was driven by competing interests by the developers of this
project, who are also users --- as opposed to external "demands".
We will seek to continue to release early and often, and one of our current
faults is that we haven't been releasing 2.5-dev often enough to engage
users
in the next release series, but pouring most of our energy into wedging
these
changes back into the 2.4.x branch. But unlike commercial software and
many OSS projects, we don't declare 2.4.0 to be "feature complete", and
we continue to improve it in straightforward ways throughout the 2.4
lifetime.
If you want to package a stable "product", you can follow the RedHat and
others' model. Just to take that single example, httpd 2.4.3 is the
released
flavor by RedHat. They go to the extra effort to backport fixes-only and
plan
to support that version for some 10 years or so. That is why many larger
users choose to stick with something like RHEL or CentOS or similar
distributions which are feature-frozen and much more stable than an active
product undergoing constant enhancement.
Just to wrap up another tl;dr post... others offered you a different option,
skip those versions which are too "experimental" for your tastes, and wait
for bugs to shake out. We assert that 2.4.newest is the best available
version, but in such a large, modular and flexible project, it's impossible
to assure that a change set (release) will be an improvement for each and
every use case.
Use the version that is most appropriate to your use case, and seek a
commercial product if you expect the sort of stasis that your protest
appears to seek.
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 26/03/2016 22:54, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> *yawn*
>
> grow up!
>
> especially with your off-list hate-mails while block responses
off-list hate mails? The message was pretty clear you emailed me asking
me never to reply to any of your posts some time ago, I emailed you
reminding you that works both fscking ways and if you didnt like that
hell will be unleashed upon you.
also, the DNSBL blacklisting on you for your antics of past 2+ years or
so still stands given what I've witnessed even in recent times. If you
are going to be abusive, and blackmailing people, you have to live with
reactions to your actions, it is only appropriate a DNSBL "tell" people
why a host is blocked, just proudly doing my job :)
if you were not a complete arsehole, none of those list moderations,
bannings and so on would have occurred, but seems like you will never
change, consider this the last time i reply to you on this list, and
thank you for re-justifying the DNSBL listing.
happy easter
--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 26.03.2016 um 04:44 schrieb Noel Butler:
> On 26/03/2016 13:32, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 26.03.2016 um 04:13 schrieb Noel Butler:
>>> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>>> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push
>>>>> with a release often mentality
>>>>>
>>>>> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any
>>>>> pending release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry
>>>>> about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set
>>>>> programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready
>>>>> or not…..
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.
>>>
>>> sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of
>>> the users, especially, the larger users.
>>
>> if it has no relevant bugfixes for you - just don't upgrade - so what
>> why should others wait for probably relevant fixes longer just because
>> you are annoyed by an update nobody is forcing you to install?
>
> *yawn*
grow up!
especially with your off-list hate-mails while block responses
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 26/03/2016 13:32, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 26.03.2016 um 04:13 schrieb Noel Butler:
>> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push
>>>> with a release often mentality
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any
>>>> pending release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then
>>>> worry
>>>> about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set
>>>> programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready
>>>> or not…..
>>>
>>> It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.
>>
>> sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not
>> of
>> the users, especially, the larger users.
>
> if it has no relevant bugfixes for you - just don't upgrade - so what
> why should others wait for probably relevant fixes longer just because
> you are annoyed by an update nobody is forcing you to install?
*yawn*
--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Reindl Harald <h....@thelounge.net>.
Am 26.03.2016 um 04:13 schrieb Noel Butler:
> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
>>
>>> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push
>>> with a release often mentality
>>>
>>> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any
>>> pending release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry
>>> about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set
>>> programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready
>>> or not…..
>>
>> It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.
>
> sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of
> the users, especially, the larger users.
if it has no relevant bugfixes for you - just don't upgrade - so what
why should others wait for probably relevant fixes longer just because
you are annoyed by an update nobody is forcing you to install?
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
>
>> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push
>> with a release often mentality
>>
>> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any
>> pending release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry
>> about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set
>> programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or
>> not…..
>
> It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.
sounds like you only look at this from one perspective, and thats not of
the users, especially, the larger users.
--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a release often mentality
>
> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not…..
It sounds like you’re making drama where there is none.
We have a release process designed to catch problems before they reach the public. That release process caught a problem, and that problem is being dealt with as per that release process. The system is working, nothing to see here.
Regards,
Graham
—
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 23/03/2016 22:27, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I see your point and have no intent or desire to flame.
>
> Release Often is hardly a Bad Thing, at least IMHO. When the
> time is right for a release, then we release. It seemed a
> good time, again IMHO.
>
> My opinion that "this shit will happen" when, despite lots of
> notice of intent to tag, and reminders to test, etc.. people
> simply DON'T, wait for the test tarball, find breakage, and
> then apply major restructure/refactor "at the last minute".
>
> Sure, stuff that like occasionally will happen, and it is,
> after all, why we create test tarballs and call for a vote.
> But when it becomes the rule instead of the exception, then
> we have an issue w/ the process and the workflow.
>
> Frequent release, IMHO, are an indication of health and
> project vitality. When Apache httpd is suffering from the
>
You also need to look at it from the side of system admins, not just as
coder.
Many admins see frequent releases as something that's bug riddled
You don't hear them saying the same about other software, eg: postfix,
which releases not so frequently (though puts new things in the unstable
branch)
Dovecot is a great example of release often with F-ups, and it doesn't
take much to see that it has problems which need addressing soon after
each release, phpmyadmin releases often, so often, even Marc got sick of
it and decided there would be minimum monthly updates, instead of
bi-weekly updates, I know admins running phpmyadmin thats over a year
old because they got sick of upgrading every few days.
So it works both ways, releasing every 5 or 6 months shows an active
_stable_ project, evervy month or two and it raises alarms.
But thats just my opinion which does tend to be a general consensus on
many system admin lists/irc chans.
--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
On 3/23/2016 7:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Release Often is hardly a Bad Thing, at least IMHO. When the
> time is right for a release, then we release. It seemed a
> good time, again IMHO.
Kinda late to the party, but shouldn't what's committed to a stable
branch _always_ be ready to release?
Just my .02 on the side conversation. As a sysadmin, I have no strong
preference for release often versus release seldom... just so long as
what is released is stable and won't break my stuff.
At $dayjob where I have to answer to regulatory and audit authorities,
there have been plenty of releases of various software platforms that I
have chosen not to pursue because they don't address anything I need to
worry about. No harm done.
So, my stance as a sysadmin (and probably a fairly common stance, I'd
guess) can be summarized as:
If there's a bug fix for a problem I'm seeing, I'd really like the
release sooner rather than later. On the other hand, if there's a
security fix, I need it released immediately. On yet another hand
(because it seems I have three), if the release has nothing I care
about... then I don't care.
But whatever happens, don't break my configs :-)
As an even further side note... after following this dev list
(community) as long as I have, I'd happily put an httpd 2.4.nightly
against just about any other released software. I can't think of a
single case where something got *committed* to 2.4 that would break my
configs let alone something that got formally released. Indeed, the few
thousand httpd servers I run haven't been harmed by a release in all of
my time as an admin (1.3, 2.0 and 2.4 alike). Our release process is,
indeed, pretty damn good. So whether we release often or release seldom,
we can at least hold our head high while we do it.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net> wrote:
>
> On 23/03/2016 20:56, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Let's see: I recalled the vote for 2.4.19 because of a
>> single issue, basically related to a missing few lines in
>> a file which prevented building on Win. Nice, easy, simple
>> fix.
>> Now it appears that a slew of "fixes" related to Win have
>> been applied which, according to some, makes the whole build-
>> on-Win situation much much worse.
>> Now I have no idea what the status of HEAD for 2.4 is and,
>> as a result, we are delaying the T&R and eventual release of
>> 2.4.19/20. All because a 4-line fix turned into a master-refactor
>> at the last minute.
>> I am tempted to revert 2.4 back...
>
>
> as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a release often mentality
>
> AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry about releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not.....
>
>
> flame away... IDGAF
I see your point and have no intent or desire to flame.
Release Often is hardly a Bad Thing, at least IMHO. When the
time is right for a release, then we release. It seemed a
good time, again IMHO.
My opinion that "this shit will happen" when, despite lots of
notice of intent to tag, and reminders to test, etc.. people
simply DON'T, wait for the test tarball, find breakage, and
then apply major restructure/refactor "at the last minute".
Sure, stuff that like occasionally will happen, and it is,
after all, why we create test tarballs and call for a vote.
But when it becomes the rule instead of the exception, then
we have an issue w/ the process and the workflow.
Frequent release, IMHO, are an indication of health and
project vitality. When Apache httpd is suffering from the
FUD of being old, slow, behind-the-times, lacking features
and capability, etc, I think showing our community that we
are actively working the code, adding features, fixing
bugs, making improvements, etc is a Good Thing.
Re: Status for 2.4.20
Posted by Noel Butler <no...@ausics.net>.
On 23/03/2016 20:56, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Let's see: I recalled the vote for 2.4.19 because of a
> single issue, basically related to a missing few lines in
> a file which prevented building on Win. Nice, easy, simple
> fix.
>
> Now it appears that a slew of "fixes" related to Win have
> been applied which, according to some, makes the whole build-
> on-Win situation much much worse.
>
> Now I have no idea what the status of HEAD for 2.4 is and,
> as a result, we are delaying the T&R and eventual release of
> 2.4.19/20. All because a 4-line fix turned into a master-refactor
> at the last minute.
>
> I am tempted to revert 2.4 back...
as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push
with a release often mentality
AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending
release, so lets get house in order S T A B L E , then worry about
releases, jesus christ, we are not ubuntu or redhat with set programs to
release every 3 or 6 months regardless if shit is ready or not.....
flame away... IDGAF
--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/