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 <da...@bitnebula.com> on 2020/07/29 15:26:27 UTC
[VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
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 2.4.45:
[ ] +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: 98d470cee244a41ac933f44428ebf10149639a8c *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
sha256: 653b4f24eca6852e1b6248f6dc9a6674b647fdc4d1d4583f46bd8a6c8ee049ae
*httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
sha512:
8b1e9c22371c75efd2466c69ed48782ddcecfe0a3ff143ca3f9cb720ea2aee56f5c323a9e3ae80cd5c44f1601b5894879af03b6b3729a8ca0555bb5193a1296a
*httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
The SVN tag is '2.4.45' at r1880411.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:26 AM Daniel Ruggeri <da...@bitnebula.com> 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 2.4.45:
> [ ] +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: 98d470cee244a41ac933f44428ebf10149639a8c *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha256: 653b4f24eca6852e1b6248f6dc9a6674b647fdc4d1d4583f46bd8a6c8ee049ae
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha512:
> 8b1e9c22371c75efd2466c69ed48782ddcecfe0a3ff143ca3f9cb720ea2aee56f5c323a9e3ae80cd5c44f1601b5894879af03b6b3729a8ca0555bb5193a1296a
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
>
> The SVN tag is '2.4.45' at r1880411.
>
> --
+1 based on 2.4.44 testing on AIX/PPC64
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 3:19 PM Daniel Ruggeri <da...@bitnebula.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/2020 2:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:10 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Jul 30, 2020, at 5:55 AM, Christophe JAILLET <
>> christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> >
>> > I wouldn't say it is a show stopper, but I thought that we had a travis
>> job for that.
>> > Apparently, it is on trunk only (see r1879370 which is not backported,
>> maybe on purpose)
>>
>> I agree that it's not a show-stopper but it is something that seems easy
>> to fix and, considering that (1) we want to release the best possible
>> version as we can and (2) there is quite a bit of time between releases, I
>> wouldn't be opposed if the RM decided to skip 2.4.45 and go w/ 2.4.46.
>>
>
> Agreed. And Steffen points out there is precedence.
>
> Aye - and I'd hate to appear inconsistent :-)
>
> Version numbers are cheap - I'll re-roll when we have confirmation all is
> good in the 2.4 branch.
>
Released on Jun 29th, we do not compile against lua 5.4.0. A possible fix
is described here;
https://github.com/apache/httpd/pull/133
If there is anyone very savvy with lua coding, it would be good to identify
the best approach for compatibility. (It may not be realistic to solve this
in 2.4.46.)
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <da...@bitnebula.com>.
On 7/30/2020 2:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:10 AM Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com
> <ma...@jagunet.com>> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 2020, at 5:55 AM, Christophe JAILLET
> <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr
> <ma...@wanadoo.fr>> wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't say it is a show stopper, but I thought that we had a
> travis job for that.
> > Apparently, it is on trunk only (see r1879370 which is not
> backported, maybe on purpose)
>
> I agree that it's not a show-stopper but it is something that
> seems easy to fix and, considering that (1) we want to release the
> best possible version as we can and (2) there is quite a bit of
> time between releases, I wouldn't be opposed if the RM decided to
> skip 2.4.45 and go w/ 2.4.46.
>
>
> Agreed. And Steffen points out there is precedence.
>
Aye - and I'd hate to appear inconsistent :-)
Version numbers are cheap - I'll re-roll when we have confirmation all
is good in the 2.4 branch.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:10 AM Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 30, 2020, at 5:55 AM, Christophe JAILLET <
> christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't say it is a show stopper, but I thought that we had a travis
> job for that.
> > Apparently, it is on trunk only (see r1879370 which is not backported,
> maybe on purpose)
>
> I agree that it's not a show-stopper but it is something that seems easy
> to fix and, considering that (1) we want to release the best possible
> version as we can and (2) there is quite a bit of time between releases, I
> wouldn't be opposed if the RM decided to skip 2.4.45 and go w/ 2.4.46.
>
Agreed. And Steffen points out there is precedence.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Steffen Land <in...@apachelounge.com>.
aplogno warnings on 2.4.40 was a reason to skip.
www.apachelounge.com/viewtopic.php?t=8329&highlight=aplogno
On Thursday 30/07/2020 at 17:10, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2020, at 5:55 AM, Christophe JAILLET
>> <ch...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't say it is a show stopper, but I thought that we had a
>> travis job for that.
>> Apparently, it is on trunk only (see r1879370 which is not backported,
>> maybe on purpose)
>>
>
> I agree that it's not a show-stopper but it is something that seems
> easy to fix and, considering that (1) we want to release the best
> possible version as we can and (2) there is quite a bit of time
> between releases, I wouldn't be opposed if the RM decided to skip
> 2.4.45 and go w/ 2.4.46.
>
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Jul 30, 2020, at 5:55 AM, Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't say it is a show stopper, but I thought that we had a travis job for that.
> Apparently, it is on trunk only (see r1879370 which is not backported, maybe on purpose)
>
I agree that it's not a show-stopper but it is something that seems easy to fix and, considering that (1) we want to release the best possible version as we can and (2) there is quite a bit of time between releases, I wouldn't be opposed if the RM decided to skip 2.4.45 and go w/ 2.4.46.
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:55:09AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> I've not tested yet, but looking at Steffen Land compilation error logs on
> Windows, I've been surprised by:
>
> Warning C4003 modules\proxy\mod_proxy_fcgi.c 180 not enough
> arguments for function-like macro invocation 'APLOGNO'
>
> In fact, in r1879525, r1877830 seems to be missing in what has been
> committed in 2.4.x.
>
> I wouldn't say it is a show stopper, but I thought that we had a travis job
> for that.
Good catch!
Unfortunately the APLOGNO() check only runs for trunk because it uses
docs/log-message-tags/* stuff which doesn't exist outside trunk. That
is itself deliberate, the data is only supposed to be maintained in one
place.
I've updated the travis test in r1880453 to check for the missing
argument case for non-trunk, will backport if that passes.
Regards, Joe
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 29/07/2020 à 17:26, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
> 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 2.4.45:
> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
> [X] +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: 98d470cee244a41ac933f44428ebf10149639a8c *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha256: 653b4f24eca6852e1b6248f6dc9a6674b647fdc4d1d4583f46bd8a6c8ee049ae
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha512:
> 8b1e9c22371c75efd2466c69ed48782ddcecfe0a3ff143ca3f9cb720ea2aee56f5c323a9e3ae80cd5c44f1601b5894879af03b6b3729a8ca0555bb5193a1296a
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
>
> The SVN tag is '2.4.45' at r1880411.
+0 (before additional testing, likely this afternoon)
I've not tested yet, but looking at Steffen Land compilation error logs
on Windows, I've been surprised by:
Warning C4003 modules\proxy\mod_proxy_fcgi.c 180 not enough
arguments for function-like macro invocation 'APLOGNO'
In fact, in r1879525, r1877830 seems to be missing in what has been
committed in 2.4.x.
I wouldn't say it is a show stopper, but I thought that we had a travis
job for that.
Apparently, it is on trunk only (see r1879370 which is not backported,
maybe on purpose)
CJ
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:26:27AM -0500, 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 2.4.45:
> [X] +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.
+1 from me, builds and passes tests on Fedora. For the first time ever
with this tag, we also have a build which passed in Travis. Woohoo!
https://travis-ci.org/github/apache/httpd/builds/712963065
Double thanks for RMing twice :)
Regads, Joe
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Giovanni Bechis <gi...@paclan.it>.
On 7/29/20 5:26 PM, 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 2.4.45:
> [ ] +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: 98d470cee244a41ac933f44428ebf10149639a8c *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha256: 653b4f24eca6852e1b6248f6dc9a6674b647fdc4d1d4583f46bd8a6c8ee049ae
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha512:
> 8b1e9c22371c75efd2466c69ed48782ddcecfe0a3ff143ca3f9cb720ea2aee56f5c323a9e3ae80cd5c44f1601b5894879af03b6b3729a8ca0555bb5193a1296a
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
>
> The SVN tag is '2.4.45' at r1880411.
>
+1, builds and works fine on Fedora 32 and OpenBSD current.
Thanks for the release
Giovanni
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <da...@bitnebula.com>.
For my own vote: +1
Tested platform info follows. Same note as yesterday where lua was kept
back to 5.3 rather than 5.4.
system:
kernel:
name: Linux
release: 4.19.0-9-amd64
version: #1 SMP Debian 4.19.118-2+deb10u1 (2020-06-07)
machine: x86_64
libraries:
openssl: "1.1.1g"
openldap: "2.4.50"
apr: "1.7.0"
apr-util: "1.6.1"
iconv: "1.2.2"
brotli: "1.0.7"
nghttp2: "1.41.0"
zlib: "1.2.11"
pcre: "8.44"
libxml2: "2.9.9"
php: "7.4.8"
lua: "5.3.5"
curl: "7.71.1"
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 7/29/2020 10:26 AM, 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 2.4.45:
> [ ] +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: 98d470cee244a41ac933f44428ebf10149639a8c *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha256: 653b4f24eca6852e1b6248f6dc9a6674b647fdc4d1d4583f46bd8a6c8ee049ae
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha512:
> 8b1e9c22371c75efd2466c69ed48782ddcecfe0a3ff143ca3f9cb720ea2aee56f5c323a9e3ae80cd5c44f1601b5894879af03b6b3729a8ca0555bb5193a1296a
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
>
> The SVN tag is '2.4.45' at r1880411.
>
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>.
> Am 29.07.2020 um 17:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri <da...@bitnebula.com>:
>
> 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 2.4.45:
> [ ] +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: 98d470cee244a41ac933f44428ebf10149639a8c *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha256: 653b4f24eca6852e1b6248f6dc9a6674b647fdc4d1d4583f46bd8a6c8ee049ae
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha512:
> 8b1e9c22371c75efd2466c69ed48782ddcecfe0a3ff143ca3f9cb720ea2aee56f5c323a9e3ae80cd5c44f1601b5894879af03b6b3729a8ca0555bb5193a1296a
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
>
> The SVN tag is '2.4.45' at r1880411.
+1
Tested h2 test suite on Darwin19.6.0 x86_64, mpm_worker + mpm_event
Thanks for RMing, Daniel!
- Stefan
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@gmail.com>.
On 29/07/2020 17:26, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> [X] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
Tested on fedora32 x86_64.
--
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 30/07/2020 à 22:26, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
> Hi, all;
> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>
> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
>
> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
(sorry if double post, but the first one seems to have been filtered by
the ML)
For what I will test, 2.4.45+r1880438 (i.e. 2.4.46?) is just good to go.
Tested on Ubuntu 20.04
Gcc 9.3.0
maintainer-mode
APR latest 1.7.x branch (i.e 1.7.0+)
APR-UTIL latest 1.6.x branch (i.e 1.6.1+)
Tested with event, prefork, worker
My prefork built is no more failing (should have been fixed by the
Ubuntu 20.04 upgrade a few months ago)
For some reason, I'm not able to install Protocol::HTTP2::Client. (not
related to httpd and the test framework)
It fails during testing and is not installed.
Attached, some coverage data related to my test environment.
The index.html file gives some numbers about test coverage.
If the archive is extracted, you can use the links in index.html go to
the corresponding gcov files to see what have been tested with our
current test framework, at least on my VM.
Search for #####. These lines have not been executed.
This may give someone ideas on where to add new tests
Thanks for RMing (and sorry for spotting just a bit to late this APLOGNO
issue)
CJ
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release
httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 31/07/2020 à 15:36, Rainer Jung a écrit :
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro
> argument) IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything
> else worth waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
>
> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
> Am 30.07.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
>> Hi, all;
>> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
>> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
>> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>>
>> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on
>> the vine.
>>
>> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
>
IMHO, good to go as-is.
The warning with VC built on Windows are mostly related to int vs
size_t. Not really an issue for me.
They should be fixed whenever possible, but it can wait.
Some can be triggered by gcc with -Wextra.
This could maybe be added in the maintainer built.
CJ
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:37 PM Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
> IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
> waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
I think we are OK to T&R again.
>
> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
+1
Regards;
Yann.
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl>.
Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:36:16
+0200):
>Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
>right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
AFAIK, Steffen is not working on them and nobody else from the
Apachelounge or Apachehaus community.
>The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
>IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
>waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
I had alredy built and tested 2.4.45 for Windows my self. If the APLOGNO
fix is there it is a +1 for 2.4.46 as well.
--
Jan
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release
httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1
> On Jul 31, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:37 AM Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>
>> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
>> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>>
>
> Not me. I don't think we should wait on them.
>
>> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
>> IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
>> waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
>
> Good to go from my POV.
>
>> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
>
> +1
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:37 AM Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
Not me. I don't think we should wait on them.
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
> IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
> waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
Good to go from my POV.
> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
+1
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release
httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <da...@bitnebula.com>.
Agreed - thank you (everyone) for the quick rally to fix this and for
confirming we don't have other work needing to be done. I apologize for
taking almost 24 hours to ACK and get us moving again.
I've updated CHANGES and will send a VOTE shortly
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 7/31/2020 1:28 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Since here were lots of "good-to-go, let's roll" one note though: the
> current CHANGES does not yet a section for 2.4.46, cause normally
> APLOGNO doesn't get noted on CHANGES. In this case it might be
> something like
>
> *) mod_proxy_fcgi: Fix build on Windows.
>
> and credits for Eric (who fixed it on trunk) oand/or Christophe, who
> backported it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rainer
>
> Am 31.07.2020 um 15:36 schrieb Rainer Jung:
>> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
>> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>>
>> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro
>> argument) IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything
>> else worth waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
>>
>> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>> Am 30.07.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
>>> Hi, all;
>>> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
>>> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable
>>> warnings
>>> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>>>
>>> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on
>>> the vine.
>>>
>>> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release
httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Since here were lots of "good-to-go, let's roll" one note though: the
current CHANGES does not yet a section for 2.4.46, cause normally
APLOGNO doesn't get noted on CHANGES. In this case it might be something
like
*) mod_proxy_fcgi: Fix build on Windows.
and credits for Eric (who fixed it on trunk) oand/or Christophe, who
backported it.
Best regards,
Rainer
Am 31.07.2020 um 15:36 schrieb Rainer Jung:
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
> IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
> waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
>
> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
> Am 30.07.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
>> Hi, all;
>> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
>> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
>> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>>
>> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the
>> vine.
>>
>> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
Regards,
Rainer
Am 30.07.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
> Hi, all;
> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>
> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
>
> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 30/07/2020 à 22:26, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
> Hi, all;
> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>
> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
>
> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
For what I will test, 2.4.45+r1880438 (i.e. 2.4.46?) is just good to go.
Tested on Ubuntu 20.04
Gcc 9.3.0
maintainer-mode
APR latest 1.7.x branch (i.e 1.7.0+)
APR-UTIL latest 1.6.x branch (i.e 1.6.1+)
Tested with event, prefork, worker
My prefork built is no more failing :) (should have been fixed by the
Ubuntu 20.04 upgrade a few months ago)
For some reason, I'm not able to install Protocol::HTTP2::Client. (not
related to httpd and the test framework)
It fails during testing and is not installed.
Attached, some coverage data related to my test environment.
The index.html file gives some numbers about test coverage.
If the archive is extracted, you can use the links in index.html go to
the corresponding gcov files to see what have been tested with our
current test framework, at least on my VM.
Search for #####. These lines have not been executed.
This may give someone ideas on where to add new tests :)
Thanks for RMing (and sorry for spotting just a bit to late this APLOGNO
issue)
CJ
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <da...@bitnebula.com>.
Hi, all;
I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
which have precedence for holding up a release.
To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 7/29/2020 10:26 AM, 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 2.4.45:
> [ ] +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: 98d470cee244a41ac933f44428ebf10149639a8c *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha256: 653b4f24eca6852e1b6248f6dc9a6674b647fdc4d1d4583f46bd8a6c8ee049ae
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha512:
> 8b1e9c22371c75efd2466c69ed48782ddcecfe0a3ff143ca3f9cb720ea2aee56f5c323a9e3ae80cd5c44f1601b5894879af03b6b3729a8ca0555bb5193a1296a
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
>
> The SVN tag is '2.4.45' at r1880411.
>
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>.
Thanks for you reply Graham,
Indeed apt-util warnings not relevant here.
You said below : ... more Windows testing over at APR ..... For HTTPD enough ? We test HTTPD and APR quite intensive with a few members, even on production level on different configurations. The code is quite good, so we find not that much.
I hope you have also concerns about Windows warnings. There is a reason that ms gives code a warning, a sign that code can be better.
We had some Windows coders in the community, sadly they left. I shall look around again.
Ps. We test also Trunk, issues found I let it know (like in May) and post warnings here. After some commits we test. It is not automated like Travis.
> Op 30 jul. 2020 om 11:56 heeft Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> het volgende geschreven:
>
> On 30 Jul 2020, at 11:16, Steffen Land <in...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 on Windows.
>>
>> I am in doubt for a -0 :
>>
>> Still quite some (more) warnings, now 432, attached Win64 warnings with the ones from APR-UTIL.
>>
>> I think a goal is (must be) that we get warning free on all platforms, now it looks bad on Windows.
>>
>> I reported here a few times. APR is warning free, thanks to Yann.
>
> Apr-util is a library from the APR project, not httpd, and so warnings from APR wouldn’t be relevant for an httpd release, or for the httpd project.
>
> That said there is definite need for more Windows testing over at APR, if you or members of the Apachelounge community are in the position to contribute patches this will be very much appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> —
>
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 30 Jul 2020, at 11:16, Steffen Land <in...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
> +1 on Windows.
>
> I am in doubt for a -0 :
>
> Still quite some (more) warnings, now 432, attached Win64 warnings with the ones from APR-UTIL.
>
> I think a goal is (must be) that we get warning free on all platforms, now it looks bad on Windows.
>
> I reported here a few times. APR is warning free, thanks to Yann.
Apr-util is a library from the APR project, not httpd, and so warnings from APR wouldn’t be relevant for an httpd release, or for the httpd project.
That said there is definite need for more Windows testing over at APR, if you or members of the Apachelounge community are in the position to contribute patches this will be very much appreciated.
Regards,
Graham
—
Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Steffen Land <in...@apachelounge.com>.
+1 on Windows.
I am in doubt for a -0 :
Still quite some (more) warnings, now 432, attached Win64 warnings
with the ones from APR-UTIL.
I think a goal is (must be) that we get warning free on all platforms,
now it looks bad on Windows.
I reported here a few times. APR is warning free, thanks to Yann.
Steffen
On Wednesday 29/07/2020 at 17:26, 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 2.4.45:
> [ ] +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: 98d470cee244a41ac933f44428ebf10149639a8c *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha256:
> 653b4f24eca6852e1b6248f6dc9a6674b647fdc4d1d4583f46bd8a6c8ee049ae
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha512:
> 8b1e9c22371c75efd2466c69ed48782ddcecfe0a3ff143ca3f9cb720ea2aee56f5c323a9e3ae80cd5c44f1601b5894879af03b6b3729a8ca0555bb5193a1296a
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
>
> The SVN tag is '2.4.45' at r1880411.
>
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>
>