You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> on 2008/06/02 23:18:46 UTC
Re: svn commit: r662530 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.3.x/Makefile.win
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 19:31 +0000, wrowe@apache.org wrote:
> Backports: r662529
Does that mean you're planning on spinning 1.3.1?
--
Bojan
Re: svn commit: r662530 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.3.x/Makefile.win
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 18:50 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Please feel free! Such things are easily forgotten later on.
OK.
> That patch is fine. And yes - it's worth debating how to communicate
> the notice information from the engines (first question; how do these
> correspond to other SQL clients?)
Absolutely no idea. This thing may be PostgreSQL specific, actually.
Will check.
> Agreed, I'd appreciate his vote. But not for the -1 he cast earlier, we
> resolved his objections to his satisfaction long before the tag.
Yes, I've seen that. Still (me being paranoid and all), it would be
great getting a confirmation that all is well...
--
Bojan
Re: svn commit: r662530 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.3.x/Makefile.win
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 17:37 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Not unless -1's appear.
>
> OK, thanks. I was asking because there were a few commits to trunk that
> would be worth backporting in case you were re-spinning. Unless people
> object, I will do that soon, so that I don't forget before 1.3.1.
>
> In particular, I'm referring here to:
>
> - r661178, 662326: thread safe apr_getservbyname()
> - r661146, 662114, 662300: apr_shm: fix failure in test_named_remove
> - r662299: silence GCC strict aliasing warning for APR rings
Please feel free! Such things are easily forgotten later on.
> Maybe even something along these lines, provided we all agree how it
> should be done now that API is frozen:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@apr.apache.org/msg20247.html
That patch is fine. And yes - it's worth debating how to communicate
the notice information from the engines (first question; how do these
correspond to other SQL clients?)
>> So I plan to vote shortly (almost done with win32 packages and my own
>> votes), and extend the vote another 12 hours to give everyone a chance
>> to cast their actual vote.
>
> I would be very interested in seeing a vote from Joe, as he cast one of
> the -1 votes during the release planning process. I did build
> 1.3.0 APR/APU RPMs (locally) on Fedora, so I know that part should be
> mostly OK, but Joe is Fedora/RHEL Apache maintainer and his input would
> be invaluable on this.
Agreed, I'd appreciate his vote. But not for the -1 he cast earlier, we
resolved his objections to his satisfaction long before the tag.
Bill
Re: svn commit: r662530 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.3.x/Makefile.win
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 17:37 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Not unless -1's appear.
OK, thanks. I was asking because there were a few commits to trunk that
would be worth backporting in case you were re-spinning. Unless people
object, I will do that soon, so that I don't forget before 1.3.1.
In particular, I'm referring here to:
- r661178, 662326: thread safe apr_getservbyname()
- r661146, 662114, 662300: apr_shm: fix failure in test_named_remove
- r662299: silence GCC strict aliasing warning for APR rings
Maybe even something along these lines, provided we all agree how it
should be done now that API is frozen:
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@apr.apache.org/msg20247.html
> It's not the cleanest build, but it's not a regression given that this
> build schema didn't exist until 1.2.12, and it does build, with some noise.
Yeah, I reckon for .0 is not all that bad :-)
> Of course I'm fixing everything I see so that 1.3.1 (when it is rolled)
> is golden. I'd also be a fan of the next bugfix point release sometime
> in July, or August at the latest. I don't think we should be waiting
> so long between releases,
Absolutely.
> So I plan to vote shortly (almost done with win32 packages and my own
> votes), and extend the vote another 12 hours to give everyone a chance
> to cast their actual vote.
I would be very interested in seeing a vote from Joe, as he cast one of
the -1 votes during the release planning process. I did build
1.3.0 APR/APU RPMs (locally) on Fedora, so I know that part should be
mostly OK, but Joe is Fedora/RHEL Apache maintainer and his input would
be invaluable on this.
--
Bojan
Re: svn commit: r662530 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.3.x/Makefile.win
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 19:31 +0000, wrowe@apache.org wrote:
>> Backports: r662529
>
> Does that mean you're planning on spinning 1.3.1?
Not unless -1's appear.
It's not the cleanest build, but it's not a regression given that this
build schema didn't exist until 1.2.12, and it does build, with some noise.
Of course I'm fixing everything I see so that 1.3.1 (when it is rolled)
is golden. I'd also be a fan of the next bugfix point release sometime
in July, or August at the latest. I don't think we should be waiting
so long between releases, but the whole 1.2.x->1.3.0 transition was
much more painful than we expected.
The hpux/aix issues with mutexes don't appear to be regressions either.
I don't think anything that's surfaced indicates a serious issue to
nullify the release.
I count +'s on the PMC from Bojan and Jim, and I expect, myself. And
nonbinding +1's from Lucian. Plenty of other feedback that was absent
a vote, so calling all of that +/-0 until a vote is cast one way or the
other.
So I plan to vote shortly (almost done with win32 packages and my own
votes), and extend the vote another 12 hours to give everyone a chance
to cast their actual vote.
Bill