You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Günter Knauf <ef...@gmx.net> on 2004/01/08 16:32:12 UTC
what about 2.1.0 ?????
Hi all,
now we have already tagged for two times, tested, and nothing happened - no 2.1.0 release is out yet.
What's about a new third try with a following release this time....???
I really wish we could have 2.1 out so that the users get a version number they can refer to; that makes bug reports a lot easier....
I see on my hosts downloads that there is enough interest now for 2.1
PLEASE LET US PUT OUT A FIRST 2.1 RELEASE !!!
thanks, Guenter.
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 04:01 PM 1/16/2004, Günter Knauf wrote:
>> ... should we modify the installed library name libapr-1.so to designate
>> that the
>> user is running a dev (non-release) version when using an arbitrary CVS
>> checkout? Something like libapr-dev-1.so?
>I really appreciate that you want to take care of that, but this would only help on Unix, on other platforms I think it's too complicated/impossible to do such protection, or...?
Equally trivial to name it/link against libapr-dev-1.dll.
>> This would prevent production applications from linking against a
>> (potentially) unstable code point.
>hmm, I feel a bit that sometimes you wanna be too perfect; I think that often ASF alpha code is better than what others call releases, and in the httpd-2.0 alpha phase there were even a few already using it in production...
Understand - I'm MOST concerned that a yet-unfinished 1.0 API module would
be floating around. Once 1.0 is released, it is API/binary stable. What we
are 'calling' 1.0 at the moment isn't exactly complete, so that's why I'm still
somewhat worried.
Bill
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by Günter Knauf <ef...@gmx.net>.
Hi,
> Although it is late, a relatively small number of boxes would be
> affected...
right.
> ... should we modify the installed library name libapr-1.so to designate
> that the
> user is running a dev (non-release) version when using an arbitrary CVS
> checkout? Something like libapr-dev-1.so?
I really appreciate that you want to take care of that, but this would only help on Unix, on other platforms I think it's too complicated/impossible to do such protection, or...?
> This would prevent production applications from linking against a
> (potentially) unstable code point.
hmm, I feel a bit that sometimes you wanna be too perfect; I think that often ASF alpha code is better than what others call releases, and in the httpd-2.0 alpha phase there were even a few already using it in production...
I believe that the code becomes quicker more stable if people start using it;
and often the user stresses the software in another way then what the developer might imagine...
Guen.
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 08:41 AM 1/16/2004, Günter Knauf wrote:
>Hi,
>> What ship? Did 2.1.0 actually go anywhere? Seems from the folks
>> complaining that they didn't feel we ever released it.
>correct - but I believe Justin meant APR 1.0 and not httpd...
>and with APR I've the same feeling than he:
>all those doing development fetch from CVS, and therefore they are on APR 1.0 and httpd-2.1-dev...
>so people have already started to rely on 1.0 version; I self patched mod_jk / mod_jk2 recently to work with APR 1.0, and others did probably with other 3rd party mods...
Although it is late, a relatively small number of boxes would be affected...
... should we modify the installed library name libapr-1.so to designate that the
user is running a dev (non-release) version when using an arbitrary CVS
checkout? Something like libapr-dev-1.so?
This would prevent production applications from linking against a (potentially)
unstable code point.
Bill
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Friday, January 16, 2004 3:41 PM +0100 Günter Knauf <ef...@gmx.net>
wrote:
> correct - but I believe Justin meant APR 1.0 and not httpd...
> and with APR I've the same feeling than he:
> all those doing development fetch from CVS, and therefore they are on APR
> 1.0 and httpd-2.1-dev... so people have already started to rely on 1.0
> version; I self patched mod_jk / mod_jk2 recently to work with APR 1.0, and
> others did probably with other 3rd party mods...
Exactly. When we bumped to 1.0 in CVS, we had to do a number of fixes in
Subversion to allow it to work with 1.0. -- justin
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by Günter Knauf <ef...@gmx.net>.
Hi,
> What ship? Did 2.1.0 actually go anywhere? Seems from the folks
> complaining that they didn't feel we ever released it.
correct - but I believe Justin meant APR 1.0 and not httpd...
and with APR I've the same feeling than he:
all those doing development fetch from CVS, and therefore they are on APR 1.0 and httpd-2.1-dev...
so people have already started to rely on 1.0 version; I self patched mod_jk / mod_jk2 recently to work with APR 1.0, and others did probably with other 3rd party mods...
Guenter.
> Proof is in the pudding - are we at 2.1.1-dev?
> Bill
> At 01:54 AM 1/16/2004, you wrote:
>>--On Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:28 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
>><wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>
>>>front, too. But if these are rolled, I would really feel warmer and
>>>fuzzier
>>>with calling them APR 0.9.9, or something that will restrict them from
>>>ever
>>>being used with any app build for APR 1.0 release.
>>
>>FWIW, HEAD already produces APR 1.0.0.
>>
>>Not that I'm disagreeing, but that ship sailed a long time ago. -- justin
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 09:53, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> What ship? Did 2.1.0 actually go anywhere? Seems from the folks complaining
> that they didn't feel we ever released it.
>
> Proof is in the pudding - are we at 2.1.1-dev?
Nope. No release done yet. Anyhow, this is the wrong list for
HTTP Server release discussions ;).
Sander
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> What ship? Did 2.1.0 actually go anywhere? Seems from the folks complaining
> that they didn't feel we ever released it.
>
> Proof is in the pudding - are we at 2.1.1-dev?
>
> Bill
>
Actually, the proof of the pudding is in the eating :-/
Bill
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
What ship? Did 2.1.0 actually go anywhere? Seems from the folks complaining
that they didn't feel we ever released it.
Proof is in the pudding - are we at 2.1.1-dev?
Bill
At 01:54 AM 1/16/2004, you wrote:
>--On Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:28 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>>front, too. But if these are rolled, I would really feel warmer and fuzzier
>>with calling them APR 0.9.9, or something that will restrict them from ever
>>being used with any app build for APR 1.0 release.
>
>FWIW, HEAD already produces APR 1.0.0.
>
>Not that I'm disagreeing, but that ship sailed a long time ago. -- justin
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:28 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> front, too. But if these are rolled, I would really feel warmer and fuzzier
> with calling them APR 0.9.9, or something that will restrict them from ever
> being used with any app build for APR 1.0 release.
FWIW, HEAD already produces APR 1.0.0.
Not that I'm disagreeing, but that ship sailed a long time ago. -- justin
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 04:51 PM 1/13/2004, Günter Knauf wrote:
>do you still expect massive changes with APR 1.0 ?
I have the sense that folks want to see:
* platform neutral apr_poll() that works on apr_file_t's as well, since so many
daemons and other applications will require this. Non trivial - but we may
just end up with a sleep(100 /*ms*/) poll test_files loop. Or we may have to
use local socket pairs as the fallback daemon pipe mechanism.
* completed documentation (Sander Temme has put in alot of effort at cleaning
up the doxygen results, kudos!)
I'm also feeling that running as-a-daemon should mostly be the effort of APR
itself, so that the issues between normal daemons, Win32 services, and the
odd unix dameon control environments are totally flattened out to be nearly
platform-neutral.
All that said, nothing should stop us from beginning 1.0-alphas (caviat: contents
may settle during shipment) and getting some feedback on this front, too. But
if these are rolled, I would really feel warmer and fuzzier with calling them APR
0.9.9, or something that will restrict them from ever being used with any app
build for APR 1.0 release.
Bill
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 04:51 PM 1/13/2004, Günter Knauf wrote:
>do you still expect massive changes with APR 1.0 ?
I have the sense that folks want to see:
* platform neutral apr_poll() that works on apr_file_t's as well, since so many
daemons and other applications will require this. Non trivial - but we may
just end up with a sleep(100 /*ms*/) poll test_files loop. Or we may have to
use local socket pairs as the fallback daemon pipe mechanism.
* completed documentation (Sander Temme has put in alot of effort at cleaning
up the doxygen results, kudos!)
I'm also feeling that running as-a-daemon should mostly be the effort of APR
itself, so that the issues between normal daemons, Win32 services, and the
odd unix dameon control environments are totally flattened out to be nearly
platform-neutral.
All that said, nothing should stop us from beginning 1.0-alphas (caviat: contents
may settle during shipment) and getting some feedback on this front, too. But
if these are rolled, I would really feel warmer and fuzzier with calling them APR
0.9.9, or something that will restrict them from ever being used with any app
build for APR 1.0 release.
Bill
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by Günter Knauf <ef...@gmx.net>.
Hi Bill,
thanks for your reply!
> Just so that everyone is on the same page, 2.1.0 will be an -alpha. If
sure - I'm aware of this (and it's on my site too);
but nevertheless there are now a lot of new things in 2.1-dev which people would already like to play with....
> and when
> we think we are about done with post 2.0 development, we will finally
> release
> a 2.1.x-beta. That will become the codebase (after an iteration or few)
> of the
> Apache 2.2 release. We are moving twords the tried-and-true release
> semantics
> of Perl, Linux kernels, and many other open source projects.
> Probably the number one issue would be APR 1.0-alpha acceptance. Once we
> set 1.0 in stone, there will be little distracting movement on that side
> of module
> development - so that Apache 2.1 third party module developers can really
> get
> their feet wet and demand the changes they need to see in 2.2 before we
> declare it golden and start this all over again :)
do you still expect massive changes with APR 1.0 ?
thanks, Guenter.
Re: what about 2.1.0 ?????
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Günter,
Just so that everyone is on the same page, 2.1.0 will be an -alpha. If and when
we think we are about done with post 2.0 development, we will finally release
a 2.1.x-beta. That will become the codebase (after an iteration or few) of the
Apache 2.2 release. We are moving twords the tried-and-true release semantics
of Perl, Linux kernels, and many other open source projects.
Probably the number one issue would be APR 1.0-alpha acceptance. Once we
set 1.0 in stone, there will be little distracting movement on that side of module
development - so that Apache 2.1 third party module developers can really get
their feet wet and demand the changes they need to see in 2.2 before we
declare it golden and start this all over again :)
Bill
At 09:32 AM 1/8/2004, Günter Knauf wrote:
>Hi all,
>now we have already tagged for two times, tested, and nothing happened - no 2.1.0 release is out yet.
>What's about a new third try with a following release this time....???
>I really wish we could have 2.1 out so that the users get a version number they can refer to; that makes bug reports a lot easier....
>I see on my hosts downloads that there is enough interest now for 2.1
>
>PLEASE LET US PUT OUT A FIRST 2.1 RELEASE !!!
>
>thanks, Guenter.