You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to mod_python-dev@quetz.apache.org by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> on 2006/11/04 22:35:18 UTC
Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've been
doing some testing and it's looking good.
With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260):
+1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5
+1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1
+1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3
+1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1
+1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5
+1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4
+1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5
I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it
does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer.
Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to 2.0.54,
or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing for
version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be).
Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond a
couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for
preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta
release cycle in fairly quick order.
Jim
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Posted by Jeff Hinrichs - DM&T <je...@dundeemt.com>.
On 11/4/06, Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca> wrote:
> It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've been
> doing some testing and it's looking good.
>
> With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260):
>
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1
>
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1
>
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5
>
>
> I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it
> does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer.
>
> Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to 2.0.54,
> or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing for
> version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be).
>
> Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond a
> couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for
> preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta
> release cycle in fairly quick order.
>
> Jim
+1 FreeBSD 6.1p10, Apache 2.2.3 (prefork-mpm), Python 2.4.3
[jlh@lakota:~/mod_python/trunk]$ svn info
Path: .
URL: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_python/trunk
Repository Root: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf
Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
Revision: 471600
Node Kind: directory
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: jgallacher
Last Changed Rev: 471482
Last Changed Date: 2006-11-05 12:01:58 -0600 (Sun, 05 Nov 2006)
Properties Last Updated: 2006-05-20 12:39:22 -0500 (Sat, 20 May 2006)
--
Jeff Hinrichs
Dundee Media & Technology, Inc
jeffh@dundeemt.com
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Posted by Graham Dumpleton <gr...@dscpl.com.au>.
I'm done with code changes for 3.3 now so should be okay to roll
a tar ball for preliminary testing.
On 05/11/2006, at 8:35 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
> It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've
> been doing some testing and it's looking good.
>
> With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260):
>
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1
>
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1
>
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5
>
>
> I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but
> it does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer.
>
> Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to
> 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any
> testing for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be).
>
> Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed
> beyond a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball
> for preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a
> beta release cycle in fairly quick order.
>
> Jim
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> I want to get the session/cookie changes committed first.
Plus I think MODPYTHON-195 (Win32 memory leak) should be fixed. I'll
take a look at it today.
> Also just noticed
> that one probably can't do:
>
> req.handler = None
>
> ie., set it to be unset. I can see I might want this for various
> reasons. :-)
>
> Once I have attended to that, only outstanding issue will be documentation
> updates for new module importer, but that doesn't need to stop a beta
> being done.
I don't completely agree. If the beta gets everyones approval it should
go to release without additional changes. Otherwise there should be
another testing round. Just to be clear, when I talk about a beta I mean
something that gets tagged in svn. Personally, I'd like to avoid the
version number inflation we had with 3.2.0. :)
There is no reason we can't create a tarball for preliminary testing
however. I'd be pretty surprised if we could go directly from trunk to
3.3.0-final anyway.
Jim
>
> Graham
>
> On 05/11/2006, at 8:35 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
>
>> It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've
>> been doing some testing and it's looking good.
>>
>> With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260):
>>
>> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5
>> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1
>>
>> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3
>> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1
>>
>> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5
>> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4
>> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5
>>
>>
>> I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it
>> does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer.
>>
>> Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to
>> 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing
>> for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be).
>>
>> Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond
>> a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for
>> preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta
>> release cycle in fairly quick order.
>>
>> Jim
>
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Posted by Graham Dumpleton <gr...@dscpl.com.au>.
I want to get the session/cookie changes committed first. Also just
noticed
that one probably can't do:
req.handler = None
ie., set it to be unset. I can see I might want this for various
reasons. :-)
Once I have attended to that, only outstanding issue will be
documentation
updates for new module importer, but that doesn't need to stop a beta
being done.
Graham
On 05/11/2006, at 8:35 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
> It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've
> been doing some testing and it's looking good.
>
> With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260):
>
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1
>
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1
>
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5
>
>
> I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but
> it does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer.
>
> Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to
> 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any
> testing for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be).
>
> Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed
> beyond a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball
> for preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a
> beta release cycle in fairly quick order.
>
> Jim
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Posted by Jim Gallacher <jp...@jgassociates.ca>.
Oops, sorry. I meant to include mention of that issue in my previous
email. I agree that it should be fixed for 3.3.
Jim
Jeff Robbins wrote:
> I'd really like to see MODPYTHON-195 fixed with what I've tested. It is
> a WIN32-only bug and fix. Restart of Apache on Win32 leaks one event
> handle every time if the fix is not applied. We have to run on Windows
> (long story there) and need to run long term leak-free.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Gallacher" <jp...@jgassociates.ca>
> To: <py...@httpd.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:35 PM
> Subject: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
>
>
>> It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've
>> been doing some testing and it's looking good.
>>
>> With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260):
>>
>> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5
>> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1
>>
>> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3
>> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1
>>
>> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5
>> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4
>> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5
>>
>>
>> I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it
>> does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer.
>>
>> Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to
>> 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing
>> for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be).
>>
>> Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond
>> a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for
>> preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta
>> release cycle in fairly quick order.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Posted by Jeff Robbins <je...@livedata.com>.
I'd really like to see MODPYTHON-195 fixed with what I've tested. It is a
WIN32-only bug and fix. Restart of Apache on Win32 leaks one event handle
every time if the fix is not applied. We have to run on Windows (long story
there) and need to run long term leak-free.
Thanks,
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Gallacher" <jp...@jgassociates.ca>
To: <py...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
> It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've been
> doing some testing and it's looking good.
>
> With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260):
>
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1
>
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1
>
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5
>
>
> I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it does
> still work as long as you are using the legacy importer.
>
> Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to 2.0.54, or
> at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing for version <
> 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be).
>
> Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond a
> couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for preliminary
> testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta release cycle in
> fairly quick order.
>
> Jim
>
>