[DISCUSS] Dropping the E-word from mod_lua (SFW)

[Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk>]

Hi dev@,
Though this is mainly a question for docs@, I thought I'd drop this
email into the dev@ list instead, since this is where I think
objections, if there are any, will arise.

Today, on various Internet channels, I have had to do my very best to
defend the use of mod_lua, ranging from people asking if it's safe to
use to people claiming that it should never be used in a production
environment. Why? because of one word in particular: Experimental.

In our documentation, we write the following:
----
mod_lua is still in experimental state. Until it is declared stable,
usage and behavior may change at any time, even between stable releases
of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before upgrading.
----

To a committer/programmer, this may seem totally sane, but to a user of
httpd - and I sincerely hope that users are our aim in the documentaion
- this wording screams "BACK OFF, this may explode at any given time!".
As a "long time" developer and user of httpd/mod_lua for both personal
and professional sites/manoeuvres/jobs, I find it sad that I have to
defend a module in otherwise perfect working condition with no
discernible faults at all, simply because of a wording that scares off
regular users of httpd. So I'd really like to change the wording into
something less scary, so users can both know that it's still in a
development phase, but it won't blow up your computer or spread germs if
you use it on a production server.

I'd like to change the note to something along these lines:
----
mod_lua is in a state of continuous development. Usage
and behavior is subject to change at any time, even between stable
releases of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before
upgrading
----

>From a programming point of view, I can understand if there are
reservations towards this change, but I ask you to look at it from a
user point of view, and I hope you'll welcome this proposal for change.

I hope we won't have to put something as tiny as this to a vote, and if
I do not hear any strong objections within the next 72 hours, I will
assume lazy consensus and commit this change to the documentation.

With regards,
Daniel.

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping the E-word from mod_lua (SFW)

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

We (the ASF) have services running using mod_lua. If we
trust it enough, others should as well.

Experimental and unstable will prevent many people from even
trying it. How about Cutting Edge?

On Aug 2, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:

> On 02.08.2013 14:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> Hi dev@,
>> Though this is mainly a question for docs@, I thought I'd drop this
>> email into the dev@ list instead, since this is where I think
>> objections, if there are any, will arise.
>> 
>> Today, on various Internet channels, I have had to do my very best to
>> defend the use of mod_lua, ranging from people asking if it's safe to
>> use to people claiming that it should never be used in a production
>> environment. Why? because of one word in particular: Experimental.
>> 
>> In our documentation, we write the following:
>> ----
>> mod_lua is still in experimental state. Until it is declared stable,
>> usage and behavior may change at any time, even between stable releases
>> of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before upgrading.
>> ----
>> 
>> To a committer/programmer, this may seem totally sane, but to a user of
>> httpd - and I sincerely hope that users are our aim in the documentaion
>> - this wording screams "BACK OFF, this may explode at any given time!".
>> As a "long time" developer and user of httpd/mod_lua for both personal
>> and professional sites/manoeuvres/jobs, I find it sad that I have to
>> defend a module in otherwise perfect working condition with no
>> discernible faults at all, simply because of a wording that scares off
>> regular users of httpd. So I'd really like to change the wording into
>> something less scary, so users can both know that it's still in a
>> development phase, but it won't blow up your computer or spread germs if
>> you use it on a production server.
>> 
>> I'd like to change the note to something along these lines:
>> ----
>> mod_lua is in a state of continuous development. Usage
>> and behavior is subject to change at any time, even between stable
>> releases of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before
>> upgrading
>> ----
>> 
>> From a programming point of view, I can understand if there are
>> reservations towards this change, but I ask you to look at it from a
>> user point of view, and I hope you'll welcome this proposal for change.
> 
> What about the U-word Unstable? Some might associate with unstable that
> it is not robust, so again the potential for misinterpretation, but from
> a technical point of view the term "unstable" correctly describes the
> above potential for incompatible changes.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rainer
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping the E-word from mod_lua (SFW)

[Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>]

On 02.08.2013 14:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Hi dev@,
> Though this is mainly a question for docs@, I thought I'd drop this
> email into the dev@ list instead, since this is where I think
> objections, if there are any, will arise.
> 
> Today, on various Internet channels, I have had to do my very best to
> defend the use of mod_lua, ranging from people asking if it's safe to
> use to people claiming that it should never be used in a production
> environment. Why? because of one word in particular: Experimental.
> 
> In our documentation, we write the following:
> ----
> mod_lua is still in experimental state. Until it is declared stable,
> usage and behavior may change at any time, even between stable releases
> of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before upgrading.
> ----
> 
> To a committer/programmer, this may seem totally sane, but to a user of
> httpd - and I sincerely hope that users are our aim in the documentaion
> - this wording screams "BACK OFF, this may explode at any given time!".
> As a "long time" developer and user of httpd/mod_lua for both personal
> and professional sites/manoeuvres/jobs, I find it sad that I have to
> defend a module in otherwise perfect working condition with no
> discernible faults at all, simply because of a wording that scares off
> regular users of httpd. So I'd really like to change the wording into
> something less scary, so users can both know that it's still in a
> development phase, but it won't blow up your computer or spread germs if
> you use it on a production server.
> 
> I'd like to change the note to something along these lines:
> ----
> mod_lua is in a state of continuous development. Usage
> and behavior is subject to change at any time, even between stable
> releases of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before
> upgrading
> ----
> 
> From a programming point of view, I can understand if there are
> reservations towards this change, but I ask you to look at it from a
> user point of view, and I hope you'll welcome this proposal for change.

What about the U-word Unstable? Some might associate with unstable that
it is not robust, so again the potential for misinterpretation, but from
a technical point of view the term "unstable" correctly describes the
above potential for incompatible changes.

Regards,

Rainer

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping the E-word from mod_lua (SFW)

[Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about marking specific interfaces and directives as experimental,
> and providing the normal guarantees for the others?

... And maybe splitting into two modules?

("how do I know if I'm using experimental features")

-- 
Eric Covener
covener@gmail.com

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping the E-word from mod_lua (SFW)

[Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>]

How about marking specific interfaces and directives as experimental,
and providing the normal guarantees for the others?

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping the E-word from mod_lua (SFW)

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* Jeff Trawick wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to change the note to something along these lines:
> > ----
> > mod_lua is in a state of continuous development. Usage
> > and behavior is subject to change at any time, even between stable
> > releases of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before
> > upgrading
> > ----
>
> That text sounds fine but I don't see that as being reassuringly
> non-"Experimental" from the point of an enterprise distributor or a site
> administrator.  Given that declaration, it would be naive to make your
> production site dependent on a fair amount of interesting code for
> mod_lua unless you think you can drop everything to tweak your scripts in
> order to pick up a httpd security fix at some arbitrary future time, or
> you can watch mod_lua development steadily to be prepared ahead of time. 
> "Status: Experimental" is the flag we have to say "watch out for this
> module", which seems appropriate still.

+1.

If you want to break things AND be not experimental, do the changes simply 
in trunk only (we've had that discussion...). Also, if I remember 
correctly, there's a CTR policy for mod_lua/2.4.x in place, which needs to 
be revoked once the module goes into a stable mode.

nd
-- 
package Hacker::Perl::Another::Just;print
qq~@{[reverse split/::/ =>__PACKAGE__]}~;

#  André Malo  #  http://pub.perlig.de  #

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping the E-word from mod_lua (SFW)

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Daniel Gruno <ru...@cord.dk> wrote:

> Hi dev@,
> Though this is mainly a question for docs@, I thought I'd drop this
> email into the dev@ list instead, since this is where I think
> objections, if there are any, will arise.
>
> Today, on various Internet channels, I have had to do my very best to
> defend the use of mod_lua, ranging from people asking if it's safe to
> use to people claiming that it should never be used in a production
> environment. Why? because of one word in particular: Experimental.
>
> In our documentation, we write the following:
> ----
> mod_lua is still in experimental state. Until it is declared stable,
> usage and behavior may change at any time, even between stable releases
> of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before upgrading.
> ----
>
> To a committer/programmer, this may seem totally sane, but to a user of
> httpd - and I sincerely hope that users are our aim in the documentaion
> - this wording screams "BACK OFF, this may explode at any given time!".
> As a "long time" developer and user of httpd/mod_lua for both personal
> and professional sites/manoeuvres/jobs, I find it sad that I have to
> defend a module in otherwise perfect working condition with no
> discernible faults at all, simply because of a wording that scares off
> regular users of httpd. So I'd really like to change the wording into
> something less scary, so users can both know that it's still in a
> development phase, but it won't blow up your computer or spread germs if
> you use it on a production server.
>
> I'd like to change the note to something along these lines:
> ----
> mod_lua is in a state of continuous development. Usage
> and behavior is subject to change at any time, even between stable
> releases of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before
> upgrading
> ----
>

That text sounds fine but I don't see that as being reassuringly
non-"Experimental" from the point of an enterprise distributor or a site
administrator.  Given that declaration, it would be naive to make your
production site dependent on a fair amount of interesting code for mod_lua
unless you think you can drop everything to tweak your scripts in order to
pick up a httpd security fix at some arbitrary future time, or you can
watch mod_lua development steadily to be prepared ahead of time.  "Status:
Experimental" is the flag we have to say "watch out for this module", which
seems appropriate still.


>
> From a programming point of view, I can understand if there are
> reservations towards this change, but I ask you to look at it from a
> user point of view, and I hope you'll welcome this proposal for change.
>
> I hope we won't have to put something as tiny as this to a vote, and if
> I do not hear any strong objections within the next 72 hours, I will
> assume lazy consensus and commit this change to the documentation.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>



-- 
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping the E-word from mod_lua (SFW)

[Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>]

On 2 Aug 2013, at 13:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:

> In our documentation, we write the following:
> ----
> mod_lua is still in experimental state. Until it is declared stable,
> usage and behavior may change at any time, even between stable releases
> of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before upgrading.
> ----

I hadn't realised that until today on IRC.

This is not really compatible with the back-compatibility promise of
a stable release.  Accepting that what's done is done, I'd want at
the very least to enforce the back-compatibility promise from the
point where the 'experimental' label is dropped.

> To a committer/programmer, this may seem totally sane, but to a user of
> httpd - and I sincerely hope that users are our aim in the documentaion
> - this wording screams "BACK OFF, this may explode at any given time!".

So long as an upgrade within 2.4.x might break something, that
message is absolutely necessary!

> I'd like to change the note to something along these lines:
> ----
> mod_lua is in a state of continuous development. Usage
> and behavior is subject to change at any time, even between stable
> releases of the 2.4.x series. Be sure to check the CHANGES file before
> upgrading
> ----

We tell users that when they upgrade 2.2 --> 2.4, but the opposite
when they upgrade 2.4.[x -> y].  Your proposed change buries a
critically important warning weasel-style in the smallprint!

> From a programming point of view, I can understand if there are
> reservations towards this change, but I ask you to look at it from a
> user point of view, and I hope you'll welcome this proposal for change.

Then you MUST deliver to users the promise that upgrade won't
break it!

-- 
Nick Kew