You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> on 2011/11/03 07:43:37 UTC
Re: 2.0.65 and 2.3.15-dev
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> I think 2.4.0 GA at AC is destined to be a "dot zero" release (most
> emphasis on the zero, as in null). Not suggesting we don't do it,
> simply that nobody, including yourself, will be at liberty to change
> scoreboard datum, api interfaces, etc.
>
> Are we anywhere near that level of commitment to trunk? It would be
> rather sad if 2.4.0 was ditched for 2.6.0. Just look to the recent
> perl releases for examples of such instability.
What are opinions about adding some fields to structs for extensions that
seem like a good idea but have not been written yet. This would then allow
to add them during the lifetime of 2.4.x with only a minor MMN bump.
I could imagine:
- add some fields to the global scoreboard, for benefit of mod_status:
* timestamp of last time max worker number was reached
* timestamp of last time all workers were busy
* timestamp of last time a child crashed
* number of child crashes since start
- add a void or apr_array_header_t pointer to ap_logconf, so that we may
add filtering of error log messages (there was some interest for this in a
recent thread on -dev).
I don't think any of these features should delay 2.4.0, but I think it
would be nice to have them before 2.6/3.0.
Re: 2.3.15-dev
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> OK… let's polish this… "gem".
>
> I'd really like to T&R 2.3.15-dev, get some feedback quickly and
> let's push on for a quick 2.4.0 release!
+1 for tagging 2.3.15 today.
Re: 2.3.15-dev
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
And we are tagged as 2.3.15…
On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> OK… let's polish this… "gem".
>
> I'd really like to T&R 2.3.15-dev, get some feedback quickly and
> let's push on for a quick 2.4.0 release!
Re: 2.3.15-dev
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
+1
On 08.11.2011 14:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> So far 3 +1s and counting…
>
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> OK… let's polish this… "gem".
>>
>> I'd really like to T&R 2.3.15-dev, get some feedback quickly and
>> let's push on for a quick 2.4.0 release!
Re: 2.3.15-dev
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
+1
On 08/11/2011 14:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> So far 3 +1s and counting…
>
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> OK… let's polish this… "gem".
>>
>> I'd really like to T&R 2.3.15-dev, get some feedback quickly and
>> let's push on for a quick 2.4.0 release!
Re: 2.3.15-dev
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
So far 3 +1s and counting…
On Nov 8, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> OK… let's polish this… "gem".
>
> I'd really like to T&R 2.3.15-dev, get some feedback quickly and
> let's push on for a quick 2.4.0 release!
Re: 2.3.15-dev
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/8/2011 2:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> OK… let's polish this… "gem".
>
> I'd really like to T&R 2.3.15-dev, get some feedback quickly and
> let's push on for a quick 2.4.0 release!
+1 to T&R now. The concerns about constraints around pregsub only
impact 2.2.next and 2.0.65 released, not beta! And significant
security fixes already live on 2.3-dev.
2.3.15-dev
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
OK… let's polish this… "gem".
I'd really like to T&R 2.3.15-dev, get some feedback quickly and
let's push on for a quick 2.4.0 release!
Re: 2.0.65 and 2.3.15-dev
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 11/3/2011 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Not sure what you mean... we've added additional fields, always at the
>> end of the struct, during releases with just a minor MMN bump before.
>
> To the scoreboard?
There are functions like ap_get_scoreboard_worker_from_indexes,
ap_get_scoreboard_process and ap_get_scoreboard_global. I think it should
not be a problem to append to the scoreboard structs if those functions
are used. Or am I missing something?
Re: 2.0.65 and 2.3.15-dev
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/3/2011 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Not sure what you mean... we've added additional fields, always at the
> end of the struct, during releases with just a minor MMN bump before.
To the scoreboard?
Re: 2.0.65 and 2.3.15-dev
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:43 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> I think 2.4.0 GA at AC is destined to be a "dot zero" release (most
>>> emphasis on the zero, as in null). Not suggesting we don't do it,
>>> simply that nobody, including yourself, will be at liberty to change
>>> scoreboard datum, api interfaces, etc.
>>>
>>> Are we anywhere near that level of commitment to trunk? It would be
>>> rather sad if 2.4.0 was ditched for 2.6.0. Just look to the recent
>>> perl releases for examples of such instability.
>>
>> What are opinions about adding some fields to structs for extensions that seem like a good idea but have not been written yet. This would then allow to add them during the lifetime of 2.4.x with only a minor MMN bump.
>
> Not sure what you mean... we've added additional fields, always at the
> end of the struct, during releases with just a minor MMN bump before.
The problem is that ap_logconf is embedded in the middle of server_rec, so
appending is not an option there. I thought global_score had similar
issues, but I was mistaken. There we can add fields later on.
Re: 2.0.65 and 2.3.15-dev
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:43 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> I think 2.4.0 GA at AC is destined to be a "dot zero" release (most
>> emphasis on the zero, as in null). Not suggesting we don't do it,
>> simply that nobody, including yourself, will be at liberty to change
>> scoreboard datum, api interfaces, etc.
>>
>> Are we anywhere near that level of commitment to trunk? It would be
>> rather sad if 2.4.0 was ditched for 2.6.0. Just look to the recent
>> perl releases for examples of such instability.
>
> What are opinions about adding some fields to structs for extensions that seem like a good idea but have not been written yet. This would then allow to add them during the lifetime of 2.4.x with only a minor MMN bump.
Not sure what you mean... we've added additional fields, always at the
end of the struct, during releases with just a minor MMN bump before.