You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2011/12/11 15:01:22 UTC
Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are
close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0...
My plan is to T&R sometime this week...
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Igor Galić <i....@brainsware.org>.
----- Original Message -----
>
> On Dec 15, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another
> > beta or just drop 2.4.0?
> >
>
> FWIW, my plan, without a clear RC charter, is to do a final
> 2.3.x beta (from the httpd-2.4 branch) and then a GA.
>
> IMO, there have been too many significant and wide-touching
> changes to warrant a GA release at this time.
+1
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.galic@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Dec 15, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another
> beta or just drop 2.4.0?
>
FWIW, my plan, without a clear RC charter, is to do a final
2.3.x beta (from the httpd-2.4 branch) and then a GA.
IMO, there have been too many significant and wide-touching
changes to warrant a GA release at this time.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 12/15/2011 8:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 2011, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 12/14/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the
>>> main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't
>>> have any "real" concept of Release Candidates.
>>
>> I like it that way, and see no reason to change, especially not now
>> that we are approaching such a significant milestone. If 2.4.0 didn't
>> work, burn it and move on to 2.4.1. We certainly can call 2.4.0 an
>> alpha, beta or GA release.
>>
>> -0.9 on adopting an RC approach. We do this for our day jobs. That
>> isn't the point of ASF methodology.
>
> So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another
> beta or just drop 2.4.0?
Either/both. My point was that 2.4.0 can follow the usual voting pattern
of Cast your vote that 2.4.0 is [ ] Alpha [ ] Beta [ ] GA. We don't need
five RC's of 2.4.0 before a real 2.4.0. If there are 2.4.0 - .4 which all
amount to alpha/beta approval before 2.4.5 is GA, there is nothing wrong
with continuing in our usual pattern.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Dec 14, 2011, at 3:02 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the
>> main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't
>> have any "real" concept of Release Candidates.
>
> I like it that way, and see no reason to change, especially not now
> that we are approaching such a significant milestone. If 2.4.0 didn't
> work, burn it and move on to 2.4.1. We certainly can call 2.4.0 an
> alpha, beta or GA release.
>
> -0.9 on adopting an RC approach. We do this for our day jobs. That
> isn't the point of ASF methodology.
>
So to make sure I'm clear, what is your recommendation? Another
beta or just drop 2.4.0?
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 12/14/2011 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the
> main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't
> have any "real" concept of Release Candidates.
I like it that way, and see no reason to change, especially not now
that we are approaching such a significant milestone. If 2.4.0 didn't
work, burn it and move on to 2.4.1. We certainly can call 2.4.0 an
alpha, beta or GA release.
-0.9 on adopting an RC approach. We do this for our day jobs. That
isn't the point of ASF methodology.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>.
Am 14.12.2011 13:09, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Okey dokey...
>
> Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the
> main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't
> have any "real" concept of Release Candidates.
maybe time to add one? ;-)
>
> I'm assuming we can simply tag as 2.4.0-RC1 but what about
> the MMN and the below:
>
> #define AP_SERVER_MAJORVERSION_NUMBER 2
> #define AP_SERVER_MINORVERSION_NUMBER 4
> #define AP_SERVER_PATCHLEVEL_NUMBER 0
> #define AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN 1
>
> /* Synchronize the above with docs/manual/style/version.ent */
>
> #if AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN
> #define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING "-dev"
> #else
> #define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING ""
> #endif
>
> I propose that for the RCs, we keep AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN as
> '1'... When we go for GA, we then, and only then, change to '0'
> and retag as 2.4.0.
>
> OK?
>
what about changing the above to:
#if AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN && !defined(AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING)
and then adding a line in configure to add -DAP_SERVER_ADD_STRING="-rc1"
?
this way the server would carry out the -rc1 and it would be possible to
differ between rc1, rc2, ... (and btw. other add strings like svn
revisions -r123456789 would then also be easily possible ...)
Gün.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Okey dokey...
Let's talk about the specifics of carrying this out... the
main issues is how we tag and roll this. Recall that we don't
have any "real" concept of Release Candidates.
I'm assuming we can simply tag as 2.4.0-RC1 but what about
the MMN and the below:
#define AP_SERVER_MAJORVERSION_NUMBER 2
#define AP_SERVER_MINORVERSION_NUMBER 4
#define AP_SERVER_PATCHLEVEL_NUMBER 0
#define AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN 1
/* Synchronize the above with docs/manual/style/version.ent */
#if AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN
#define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING "-dev"
#else
#define AP_SERVER_ADD_STRING ""
#endif
I propose that for the RCs, we keep AP_SERVER_DEVBUILD_BOOLEAN as
'1'... When we go for GA, we then, and only then, change to '0'
and retag as 2.4.0.
OK?
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are
> close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0...
>
> My plan is to T&R sometime this week...
+1, let's do it.
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: FC5A 6FC6 2E25 2DFD 8007 EE23 9BB8 63B0 F51B B88A
View my availability: http://tungle.me/sctemme
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:00 PM, zhiguo zhao <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> mod_lua document is not match with source code.
>> A lot of instruction removed or added.
>
> I don't personally see this as a release blocker. The doc says it's
> experimental, and what's there largely works (AFAIK)
>
> Specific shortcomings in bugzilla would be helpful.
>
+1… As RM I don't consider this a blocker.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 5:00 PM, zhiguo zhao <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> mod_lua document is not match with source code.
> A lot of instruction removed or added.
I don't personally see this as a release blocker. The doc says it's
experimental, and what's there largely works (AFAIK)
Specific shortcomings in bugzilla would be helpful.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by zhiguo zhao <zh...@gmail.com>.
mod_lua document is not match with source code.
A lot of instruction removed or added.
2011/12/12 Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM, zhiguo zhao <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > I think document is not finished.
>
> Which documents specifically? I think we'll settle for a long way
> from "finished" for documentation, like "adequate".
>
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:14 AM, zhiguo zhao <zh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1
>
> I think document is not finished.
Which documents specifically? I think we'll settle for a long way
from "finished" for documentation, like "adequate".
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by zhiguo zhao <zh...@gmail.com>.
-1
I think document is not finished.
2011/12/12 Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>
> On 11 Dec 2011, at 15:01, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> > Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are
> > close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0...
> >
> > My plan is to T&R sometime this week...
>
> +1.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
>
>
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de>.
On Sunday 11 December 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2011, at 15:01, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> > Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are
> > close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0...
> >
> > My plan is to T&R sometime this week...
>
> +1.
BTW, is there any reason why r1210261 (mod_slotmem_shm conf syntax)
has not been backported yet?
Apart from that, +1.
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
On 11 Dec 2011, at 15:01, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are
> close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0...
>
> My plan is to T&R sometime this week...
+1.
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: Time for httpd 2.4.0-RC1 ??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
This will be done tomorrow: Thurs 12/15.
On Dec 11, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Now that apu-1.4.1 is close to release, it looks like we are
> close to being able to have our 1st RC for 2.4.0...
>
> My plan is to T&R sometime this week...
>