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 2010/06/02 17:55:07 UTC
Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
>> Sounds like the banner added here just needs to be dropped then, or am
>> I still lost?
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES?r1=909323&r2=909322&pathrev=909323
>
> drop that banner, rename the one at the top to 2.3.6 (I think that's
> what you mean)
Yep, misspoke. Fixed in r950761 with the 2.3.6 banner moved up to the
top (no security entries had to get moved)
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>
>>>> tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
>>>> then I'm alright with that ;)
>>>
>>> slightly off-topic, how come our CHANGES has both a 2.3.6 and 2.3.7
>>> banner but there's no tag for the former?
>>
>> Per Jim, 2.3.6 will be tagged next week. 2.3.7 will follow afterwards.
>
> Sounds like the banner added here just needs to be dropped then, or am
> I still lost?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES?r1=909323&r2=909322&pathrev=909323
drop that banner, rename the one at the top to 2.3.6 (I think that's
what you mean)
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
>>> tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
>>> then I'm alright with that ;)
>>
>> slightly off-topic, how come our CHANGES has both a 2.3.6 and 2.3.7
>> banner but there's no tag for the former?
>
> Per Jim, 2.3.6 will be tagged next week. 2.3.7 will follow afterwards.
Sounds like the banner added here just needs to be dropped then, or am
I still lost?
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/CHANGES?r1=909323&r2=909322&pathrev=909323
>
> S.
>
> --
> Sander Temme
> sctemme@apache.org
> PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
>
>
>
>
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
>> then I'm alright with that ;)
>
> slightly off-topic, how come our CHANGES has both a 2.3.6 and 2.3.7
> banner but there's no tag for the former?
Per Jim, 2.3.6 will be tagged next week. 2.3.7 will follow afterwards.
S.
--
Sander Temme
sctemme@apache.org
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
> tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
> then I'm alright with that ;)
slightly off-topic, how come our CHANGES has both a 2.3.6 and 2.3.7
banner but there's no tag for the former?
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Sander Temme wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
> wrote:
>>>> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
>>>> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
>>>
>>> Were infra's concerns wrapped up from the last alpha?
>>
>> I'm sorry, I've had blackouts covering this list. What were their
>> concerns? Were they discussed on this list?
>
>
> There was at least some mod_deflate issue
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-
> dev/201002.mbox/<42...@mail.gmail.com>
>
> which was fixed in r910069. There was also talk about a mem leak but
> IIRC it was unclear if it is in httpd itself or in mod_mbox. I don't
> know if there were more concerns.
tags are cheap. If soon after 2.3.6 I need to do a 2.3.7
then I'm alright with that ;)
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Sander Temme wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>
wrote:
> >> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
> >> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
> >
> > Were infra's concerns wrapped up from the last alpha?
>
> I'm sorry, I've had blackouts covering this list. What were their
> concerns? Were they discussed on this list?
There was at least some mod_deflate issue
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-
dev/201002.mbox/<42...@mail.gmail.com>
which was fixed in r910069. There was also talk about a mem leak but
IIRC it was unclear if it is in httpd itself or in mod_mbox. I don't
know if there were more concerns.
Cheers,
Stefan
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Jun 2, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
>> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
>
> Were infra's concerns wrapped up from the last alpha?
I'm sorry, I've had blackouts covering this list. What were their concerns? Were they discussed on this list?
S.
--
Sander Temme
sctemme@apache.org
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
Were infra's concerns wrapped up from the last alpha?
--
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 02 Jun 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
Release early, release often :)
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
FWIW, I'm holding off based on a proxy/closing connection issue...
On Jun 10, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Okey dokey... unless I hear otherwise w/i a few hours, I will
> tag and roll 2.3.6-alpha
>
> On Jun 8, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Mario Brandt wrote:
>
>> Thanks Stefan,
>> it builds fine.
>>
>>
>> Mario
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 21:51, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
>>> This should be fixed now and I hopefully have also addressed Bill's
>>> concern about r952724. I don't see any blocker for an alpha-release
>>> anymore.
>>>
>>
>
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Okey dokey... unless I hear otherwise w/i a few hours, I will
tag and roll 2.3.6-alpha
On Jun 8, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Mario Brandt wrote:
> Thanks Stefan,
> it builds fine.
>
>
> Mario
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 21:51, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
>> This should be fixed now and I hopefully have also addressed Bill's
>> concern about r952724. I don't see any blocker for an alpha-release
>> anymore.
>>
>
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
And with a few addt'l patches, it builds clean (excluding some recent
ldap oddities coming from MS's toolchain), thanks for taking a good
look into this Mario.
On 6/8/2010 3:25 PM, Mario Brandt wrote:
> Thanks Stefan,
> it builds fine.
>
> Mario
>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 21:51, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
>> This should be fixed now and I hopefully have also addressed Bill's
>> concern about r952724. I don't see any blocker for an alpha-release
>> anymore.
>>
>
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Mario Brandt <jb...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Stefan,
it builds fine.
Mario
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 21:51, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> This should be fixed now and I hopefully have also addressed Bill's
> concern about r952724. I don't see any blocker for an alpha-release
> anymore.
>
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Tuesday 08 June 2010, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > OK sounds like we're good for a 2.3.6-alpha... I'll likely
> > do either later on today or else Thursday (traveling on Weds).
>
> There is still the Windows build failure reported by Gregg L.
> Smith. Does anybody with a Windows build environment have time to
> look at it?
This should be fixed now and I hopefully have also addressed Bill's
concern about r952724. I don't see any blocker for an alpha-release
anymore.
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Mario Brandt <jb...@gmail.com>.
I still get that error on Windows compiling from trunk.
Mario
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 16:05, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> OK sounds like we're good for a 2.3.6-alpha... I'll likely
>> do either later on today or else Thursday (traveling on Weds).
>
> There is still the Windows build failure reported by Gregg L. Smith. Does
> anybody with a Windows build environment have time to look at it?
>
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> OK sounds like we're good for a 2.3.6-alpha... I'll likely
> do either later on today or else Thursday (traveling on Weds).
There is still the Windows build failure reported by Gregg L. Smith.
Does anybody with a Windows build environment have time to look at it?
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
OK sounds like we're good for a 2.3.6-alpha... I'll likely
do either later on today or else Thursday (traveling on Weds).
On Jun 7, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 02.06.2010 17:55, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
>> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
>
> I think my changes concerning building shared modules by default and adding items to the error log format are complete. And I guess Stefans log configuration patches are also ready for 2.3.6.
>
> I've got two things on my Todo list, adding sub second timestamps to the access log (patch proposal forthcoming soon) and improving the graceful process shutdown. No need to wait for that with 2.3.6.
>
> Rainer
>
Re: Alpha of 2.3.6 next week
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 02.06.2010 17:55, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm planning on releasing an alpha of 2.3.6 next week in
> hopes that we can push out a beta v. soon after.
I think my changes concerning building shared modules by default and
adding items to the error log format are complete. And I guess Stefans
log configuration patches are also ready for 2.3.6.
I've got two things on my Todo list, adding sub second timestamps to the
access log (patch proposal forthcoming soon) and improving the graceful
process shutdown. No need to wait for that with 2.3.6.
Rainer
Re: 2.3.6-alpha
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 6/11/2010 7:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I have tagged and rolled 2.3.6 alpha tballs and committed them
> to the dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd repo.
Thanks! I don't see a reason to hold off the vote, since all committers
can check out that repository directly (it svn up'ed fine here, as I was
preparing for some unrelated site updates).
> As soon as they show up, I will start the release vote.
You'll be waiting a very long time, since this is all dependent on the
svnpubsub service. That update is either instantaneous, or never. It is
suggested you avoid email and file a jira ticket, to avoid pissing off Joe.
2.3.6-alpha
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I have tagged and rolled 2.3.6 alpha tballs and committed them
to the dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd repo.
As soon as they show up, I will start the release vote.