Re: no tarball til critical bugs are fixed

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >
> >I don't see any point in creating a beta tarball when we know
> >there are bugs that are severe enough to prevent a beta release.
> >I can create a tarball once those bugs are squashed.
> 
> Are these the showstoppers listed and awaiting feedback/votes ?

I'm holding off on rolling this thing until we resolve this.

What showstoppers? get_client_block() problem perhaps...



> Has anyone had the chance to test them but not comment/vote ?
> 
> #######################################################################
> 
> 
> Features:
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 	Sameer has offered a patch to do unbuffered CGI.
> 	Ben has said he supports the feature.
> 	Roy has vetoed it for 1.2
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> 	searching domains
> 
> 	lots of arguments on both sides. Brian suggests putting it in
> 	http://www.apache.org/dist/contrib/patches/1.2/   ... seems like
> 	the only option now.
> 
> Bugs:
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-
> 	Marc Slemko:
> 	rlim_t does not exist as a type on AIX 4.1.x, so a
> 	typedef is also needed there to make it compile.
> 
> 		(typedef int rlim_t) in conf.h
> 
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=--=-
> 	The logic of timeouts seems to be somewhat screwed - keepalive
> 	timeouts may be used at the wrong moments, it seems to me.  [Ben]
> 
> 	-=-=-==-=-=-
> 
> 	From: Roy
> 	The problem is that a request on /dir/ is internally redirected to
> 	/dir/index.html, which properly results in a 304 Not Modified.  However,
> 	the r->status is not updated to reflect new->status (and anything else
> 	that might need to be promoted).
> 
> 	we're still waiting for someone to speak up on whether it's a
> 	major problem or not.  I don't know that area of the code well
> 	enough, though I can't say that promotion of error code from
> 	sub-redirects has been a problem for me personally.  Again, flag
> 	it as a known bug is probably the best we can
> 	do here, unless someone wants to speak up.  [brian]
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> 	1.2-dev still has this bug in it.  get_client_block needs to
> 	check for the -1 error case from the call to bread().
> 
> 	patch offered. positive feedback so far.
> 
> 	-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> 	Roy's claim of CGI schitzo behavior and improper dealing with
> 	CONTENT_LENGTH.  This is a showstopper in my opinion until more
> 	voices are heard.
> 
> 	Roy offers 2 options:
> 	  a) Assume it is only for old scripts.  This requires changing mod_cgi
> 	    so that it rejects anything without a Content-Length (411 Length
> 	    Required) even if it is chunked, or at least anything that cannot
>             be read into a single buffer before execing the script.
> 
>           b) Assume it is for new scripts and that old scripts will just never
> 	    see the HTTP/1.1 input (after all, no sane client would chunk an
> 	    x-www-url-encoded form).  This requires changing get_client_block
> 	    so that it passes the chunk size and footer to the script. 
> 
> 	Jim voted for (b)
> 	Ed  voted for (a) 
> 
> 	Alexei says it's supposed to be this way.
> 
> 	+ other comments.
> 
> 	Roy has offered a patch.
> 	Ben thinks there might be something wrong with it, Roy offered
> 	a fix.
> 	+1 from Randy.
> 
> 
> Showstoppers (perhaps):
> 
> 	?  get_client_block needs to check for the -1  (sounds nasty)
> 
> 	CGI dealing & CONTENT_LENGTH
> 
> 
> TODO:
> 
> 	now
> 		Prepare more documentation.
> 		Resolve all outstanding bugs (see above).
> 	Nov 24	Create last pre-beta tarball (Randy?)
> 		Test, test, test.
> 		Report back with positive as well as negative comments.
> 	Nov 30	Create 1.2b1 tarball.
> 	  "	Update CVS to reflect 1.2b1 release.
> 	Dec  1  Release 1.2b1.
> 	  "	Put documentation online if there is any.
> 	  "	Hand 1.2 management over.
>