You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> on 2001/05/18 17:01:29 UTC
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Bill Stoddard wrote:
> I think we have a good shot at a beta candidate. I plan to tag the tree
> early this afternoon (ET) unless I hear objections.
Can we get a proxy in the beta?
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>.
Tagging is fine, assuming that Jeff's fixes to my big Makefile changes
last night made it in and the tree was compile-tested first. However,
you should have bumped all of the magic numbers as well. We have reached
the stage where people have to be forced to recompile rather than reuse
the last beta's binaries.
I'll see if I can bump the numbers myself.
....Roy
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> > From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
> > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:31 AM
> >
> >
> > > The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev. Commit away :-)
> >
> > This didn't answer the question below, did we toss proxy into the tarball?
> >
>
> No. I rolled the tarball before I saw the request to add proxy.
>
> > I'm -1 on releasing this tarball upon the world without rolling in the
> efforts
> > of our proxy hackers!
>
Lest you think I am being unreasonable... My time to work on the server today and this weekend is
very limited. I saw a nice opportunity to tag what I believe is a good verion of Apache 2.0 and I
did not want to let the opportunity pass. If you can get mod_proxy in before the tree goes to hell
again, I would be +1 on tagging 2.0.19 and releasing that instead of 2.0.18.
Bill
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> Right. We have a beta that people can use and test. The point is to get this
> stuff out to users. It would be great to have more features, but we can't
> keep waiting for each person's feature to be completed before whame send it out
> the door. We need to be able to send intermediates out.
Right now the proxy has been waiting for over a month to get out to some
users. If you're trying to get Apache out to users, why are you trying
to stop proxy going out to users?
Regards,
Gra
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 05:15:59PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 4:58 PM
>
> > From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
> > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 3:22 PM
> >
> > I'm not suggesting we retag the httpd-2.0 tree!!! Just provide a single tarball
> > for folks to jump on this module in this beta.
> >
> > > Since the tree is relatively stable now and we do not freeze development before
> > > tagging a tree, now seems to be a good time to try for a beta.
> > > It is not a big deal to roll the proxy
> > > tarball and make it available to work with 2.0.18. We can include it next
> > > time around.
> >
> > Why not simply tag proxy, [SAME TAG!] and add it to the tarball? How hard
> > is that?
>
> I've just slapped the APACHE_2_0_18 tag on the httpd-proxy tree, effective the same
> timetable as httpd-2.0's tag.
>
> If the modproxy folks want to check out the proxy tree, grab the tarball, insert
> proxy-2.0 into that package, and retar it as httpd-proxy-2.0.18.tar I believe that
> could make everyone happy, no?
Makes me happy. I think that is the way that we should always do it.
(assuming that when you tagged mod_proxy, you knew that the APACHE_2_0_18
tag corresponded to a mod_proxy that actually works with httpd-2.0.18; that
is a necessary precondition to tagging)
> If that package isn't up to snuff, then we release the non-proxy tarball as the
> beta, instead. And ITMT figure out how to release a single tarball easily.
Right. We have a beta that people can use and test. The point is to get this
stuff out to users. It would be great to have more features, but we can't
keep waiting for each person's feature to be completed before we send it out
the door. We need to be able to send intermediates out.
> Since FirstBill has limited time, it's not too much to ask this of proxy folk,
> who are more ready to assure the package builds.
Um. I seem to recall a note saying that has has *no* time now.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 4:58 PM
> From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 3:22 PM
>
> I'm not suggesting we retag the httpd-2.0 tree!!! Just provide a single tarball
> for folks to jump on this module in this beta.
>
> > Since the tree is relatively stable now and we do not freeze development before
> > tagging a tree, now seems to be a good time to try for a beta.
> > It is not a big deal to roll the proxy
> > tarball and make it available to work with 2.0.18. We can include it next
> > time around.
>
> Why not simply tag proxy, [SAME TAG!] and add it to the tarball? How hard
> is that?
I've just slapped the APACHE_2_0_18 tag on the httpd-proxy tree, effective the same
timetable as httpd-2.0's tag.
If the modproxy folks want to check out the proxy tree, grab the tarball, insert
proxy-2.0 into that package, and retar it as httpd-proxy-2.0.18.tar I believe that
could make everyone happy, no?
If that package isn't up to snuff, then we release the non-proxy tarball as the
beta, instead. And ITMT figure out how to release a single tarball easily.
Since FirstBill has limited time, it's not too much to ask this of proxy folk,
who are more ready to assure the package builds.
Objections?
Bill
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 3:22 PM
>
> >
> > > The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev. Commit away :-)
> >
> > This didn't answer the question below, did we toss proxy into the tarball?
> >
>
> No. I rolled the tarball before I saw the request to add proxy.
>
> > I'm -1 on releasing this tarball upon the world without rolling in the
> efforts
> > of our proxy hackers!
>
> Cough, cough, bullshit, cough :-) For several reasons. First, the
> showstoppers for going for the next beta candidate were discussed over this
> week and last and they have been resolved.
I'm not suggesting we retag the httpd-2.0 tree!!! Just provide a single tarball
for folks to jump on this module in this beta.
> Since the tree is relatively stable now and we do not freeze development before
> tagging a tree, now seems to be a good time to try for a beta.
> It is not a big deal to roll the proxy
> tarball and make it available to work with 2.0.18. We can include it next
> time around.
Why not simply tag proxy, [SAME TAG!] and add it to the tarball? How hard
is that?
> Finally, unless I am mistaken, Chuck believes there are still
> showstopper problems with the proxy and it is not a beta candidate (the
> Akamai problems).
If chuck doesn't consider this proxy beta quality, then I pull my -1 back from
the tarball. But if it's not an insane idea to simply add back in the proxy
to this tarball, then lets just do it.
Bill
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Third, we have not decided the best way to
> distribute the proxy. It has been discussed at length but I don;t recall a
> final decision (I really have no opinions on whether the proxy is included
> in the httpd-2.0 tree or not). It is not a big deal to roll the proxy
> tarball and make it available to work with 2.0.18. We can include it next
> time around. Finally, unless I am mistaken, Chuck believes there are still
> showstopper problems with the proxy and it is not a beta candidate (the
> Akamai problems).
The Akamai problems are solved for me, but not for Chuck - the only way
to know for sure what is going on is to get proxy out there and get a
third opinion.
When are we going to release a decision on mod_proxy?
Options so far are:
1) Integrate it back into httpd. It's simple, it works, and it's got a
whole bunch of +1's.
2) Proxy people place latest stable version in httpd-proxy/stable.
Apache RM pulls in latest version and places it in
httpd-2.0/modules/proxy during the roll process.
Let's get a final decision on this - 1) or 2)?
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> WTF? How is that "yucky"?? The user sees two tarballs: apache and
> apache+proxy. What is the big deal?
The two tarballs are a big deal.
When I as end user see "apache" and then "apache+proxy" I go to the
mailing list and I say "why are there two archives? which one must I
use?". Then, I as an end user when I see "apache+proxy" and
"apache+rewrite" I say "where can I find "apache+proxy+rewrite?"
I am an end user - take my word for it - more than one archive sucks
*bigtime*.
> Not at all. I don't want proxy. Many other people don't. Why is it a waste
> of time for those people?
What about the people who do?
Downloading proxy when you don't need it is way better than not
downloading it when you do. Those that don't need it can simply not turn
it on. --enable-module is your friend. The same goes for any of the
modules in apache.
> The waste of time is trying to get the httpd RM to include proxy into the
> main tarball. The tarball is snapped at an arbitrary point in time, after
> some arbitrary sets of changes. How can the RM know that proxy has been
> updated to work with that particular snapshot? Answer: they can't.
Of course they can. What do you think CVS release tags are for? The RM
simply includes the latest known release, just like you would for any
library out there. What is the difference?
> Therefore: they shouldn't presume that it is okay for inclusion and release
> against that specific httpd snapshot.
Why on earth should the RM not assume that the STABLE or LATEST branch
of proxy|other module will work with the current release? If it doesn't
the testers will pick it up. Where's the problem?
> The proxy developers are the only people who know when mod_proxy is stable
> for a particular snapshot of the httpd repository. They should be
> responsible for making the snapshot of mod_proxy for a given httpd snapshot.
By tagging the last known working tree with a prearranged tag. Simple.
> Finalize what decision? And who is "they"?
decision: what to do with proxy
they: the RM
> Bill made a snapshot and release of the httpd tree. That was done and in the
> can with a very low overhead on his part. Heck, it is out the door already
> for testing. Bing bam boom.
>
> Low overhead releases are what we need.
CVS and shell scripts are already used to make this easy. Why should
adding proxy to these scripts be hard?
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:26:50PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > Even better, the proxy guys should say "okay. we have verified that our
> > stuff works with the 2.0.18 tarball, so let's release an apache+proxy
> > tarball."
>
> Really yuck for the end user.
WTF? How is that "yucky"?? The user sees two tarballs: apache and
apache+proxy. What is the big deal?
> There should be just one archive out there. There is no point in
> releasing an archive with A in it, then something with A+B - it's a
> complete waste of time.
Not at all. I don't want proxy. Many other people don't. Why is it a waste
of time for those people?
The waste of time is trying to get the httpd RM to include proxy into the
main tarball. The tarball is snapped at an arbitrary point in time, after
some arbitrary sets of changes. How can the RM know that proxy has been
updated to work with that particular snapshot? Answer: they can't.
Therefore: they shouldn't presume that it is okay for inclusion and release
against that specific httpd snapshot.
The proxy developers are the only people who know when mod_proxy is stable
for a particular snapshot of the httpd repository. They should be
responsible for making the snapshot of mod_proxy for a given httpd snapshot.
> > How was FirstBill to know whether proxy should have been included
> > or not? Was it stable and did it work against 2.0.18? No... he doesn't know
> > that.
>
> Then lets finalise the decision and they will know.
Finalize what decision? And who is "they"?
Bill made a snapshot and release of the httpd tree. That was done and in the
can with a very low overhead on his part. Heck, it is out the door already
for testing. Bing bam boom.
Low overhead releases are what we need.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> Even better, the proxy guys should say "okay. we have verified that our
> stuff works with the 2.0.18 tarball, so let's release an apache+proxy
> tarball."
Really yuck for the end user.
There should be just one archive out there. There is no point in
releasing an archive with A in it, then something with A+B - it's a
complete waste of time.
> How was FirstBill to know whether proxy should have been included
> or not? Was it stable and did it work against 2.0.18? No... he doesn't know
> that.
Then lets finalise the decision and they will know.
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
I'm with FirstBill. We snap a tarball, and we release it. That is how we are
working now.
If you want proxy in there, then call it 2.0.19. After you get whatever work
needed.
Even better, the proxy guys should say "okay. we have verified that our
stuff works with the 2.0.18 tarball, so let's release an apache+proxy
tarball." How was FirstBill to know whether proxy should have been included
or not? Was it stable and did it work against 2.0.18? No... he doesn't know
that.
The low overhead approach is for the httpd developers (such as FirstBill) to
put together an httpd tarball whenever it feels "right". It doesn't get held
up, it doesn't get delayed... it just gets done.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 04:22:51PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
>
> > From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
> > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:31 AM
> >
> >
> > > The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev. Commit away :-)
> >
> > This didn't answer the question below, did we toss proxy into the tarball?
> >
>
> No. I rolled the tarball before I saw the request to add proxy.
>
> > I'm -1 on releasing this tarball upon the world without rolling in the
> efforts
> > of our proxy hackers!
>
> Cough, cough, bullshit, cough :-) For several reasons. First, the
> showstoppers for going for the next beta candidate were discussed over this
> week and last and they have been resolved. We did not identify proxy as a
> showstopper. Second, I see talk on the APR dev list of some major function
> shuffeling about to happen. Since the tree is relatively stable now and we
> do not freeze development before tagging a tree, now seems to be a good time
> to try for a beta. I guarantee that the APR changes will break compiles on
> some OS for at least the next week if not longer. And we can get a lot of
> good beta feedback w/o proxy. Third, we have not decided the best way to
> distribute the proxy. It has been discussed at length but I don;t recall a
> final decision (I really have no opinions on whether the proxy is included
> in the httpd-2.0 tree or not). It is not a big deal to roll the proxy
> tarball and make it available to work with 2.0.18. We can include it next
> time around. Finally, unless I am mistaken, Chuck believes there are still
> showstopper problems with the proxy and it is not a beta candidate (the
> Akamai problems).
>
> This should -by far- be the best release of Apache 2.0 to date. If it is
> beta quality, it would be foolish not to release it to the world. My $.02
>
> Bill
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:31 AM
>
>
> > The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev. Commit away :-)
>
> This didn't answer the question below, did we toss proxy into the tarball?
>
No. I rolled the tarball before I saw the request to add proxy.
> I'm -1 on releasing this tarball upon the world without rolling in the
efforts
> of our proxy hackers!
Cough, cough, bullshit, cough :-) For several reasons. First, the
showstoppers for going for the next beta candidate were discussed over this
week and last and they have been resolved. We did not identify proxy as a
showstopper. Second, I see talk on the APR dev list of some major function
shuffeling about to happen. Since the tree is relatively stable now and we
do not freeze development before tagging a tree, now seems to be a good time
to try for a beta. I guarantee that the APR changes will break compiles on
some OS for at least the next week if not longer. And we can get a lot of
good beta feedback w/o proxy. Third, we have not decided the best way to
distribute the proxy. It has been discussed at length but I don;t recall a
final decision (I really have no opinions on whether the proxy is included
in the httpd-2.0 tree or not). It is not a big deal to roll the proxy
tarball and make it available to work with 2.0.18. We can include it next
time around. Finally, unless I am mistaken, Chuck believes there are still
showstopper problems with the proxy and it is not a beta candidate (the
Akamai problems).
This should -by far- be the best release of Apache 2.0 to date. If it is
beta quality, it would be foolish not to release it to the world. My $.02
Bill
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:31 AM
> The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev. Commit away :-)
This didn't answer the question below, did we toss proxy into the tarball?
I'm -1 on releasing this tarball upon the world without rolling in the efforts
of our proxy hackers!
Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
> To: <ne...@apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
>
>
> > From: "Graham Leggett" <mi...@sharp.fm>
> > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 10:01 AM
> >
> >
> > > Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think we have a good shot at a beta candidate. I plan to tag the
> tree
> > > > early this afternoon (ET) unless I hear objections.
> > >
> > > Can we get a proxy in the beta?
> >
> > +1 here
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
The tree is tagged. We are on 2.0.19-dev. Commit away :-)
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
> From: "Graham Leggett" <mi...@sharp.fm>
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 10:01 AM
>
>
> > Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> > > I think we have a good shot at a beta candidate. I plan to tag the
tree
> > > early this afternoon (ET) unless I hear objections.
> >
> > Can we get a proxy in the beta?
>
> +1 here
>
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Fri, 18 May 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Graham Leggett" <mi...@sharp.fm>
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 10:01 AM
>
>
> > Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >
> > > I think we have a good shot at a beta candidate. I plan to tag the tree
> > > early this afternoon (ET) unless I hear objections.
> >
> > Can we get a proxy in the beta?
>
> +1 here
+1 here too.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Tagging Apache 2.0 for beta candidate
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <ad...@rowe-clan.net>.
From: "Graham Leggett" <mi...@sharp.fm>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 10:01 AM
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> > I think we have a good shot at a beta candidate. I plan to tag the tree
> > early this afternoon (ET) unless I hear objections.
>
> Can we get a proxy in the beta?
+1 here