You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net> on 2002/11/22 13:50:19 UTC
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_release.h
wrowe@apache.org writes:
> wrowe 2002/11/21 18:08:42
>
> Modified: include ap_release.h
> Log:
> Branch tag APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now contains Apache 2.0 development.
>
> Persist cvs HEAD as Apache 2.1.
>
> After discussion at AC, a number of individuals including Sander, Will,
> Justin and Rich will begin reverting the appropriate changes from the
> APACHE_2_0_BRANCH, while continuing their documentation and development
> of the Authorization reorganization on this branch.
Does "reverting the appropriate changes" mean "decide which stuff
now tagged APACHE_2_0_BRANCH should be deferred until 2.1" or does it
mean "as fixes are committed to HEAD, decide which of them should be
available in Apache 2.0" or does it mean something else?
Shall I start a section in STATUS for votes on whether to move various
fixes in HEAD back to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH? hiroyuki hanai's fix to
listen.c would be the first candidate AFAICT.
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_release.h
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
At 08:11 AM 11/23/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>That sounds a lot like "decide which stuff now tagged
>APACHE_2_0_BRANCH should be deferred until 2.1" :) (or at least
>"deferred until after 2.0.44").
>
>looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
>
>. auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
> going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
Agreed, as long as we rename the modules back to their old names
(e.g. authz_host back to access, authn_anon to auth_anon etc).
Keep the hooks, that's goodness and doesn't break anyone (and
might just give a kick-in-the-pants to some authors to start using
the new hook architecture even for their 2.0 modules.)
However, to maintain compatibility, perhaps we roll together the core
module sources (auth_basic, authn_file, authn_default, authz_user,
authz_groupfile, and authz_default) into one single mod_auth.
And if auth renamed directives, they need to be reverted on 2_0_BRANCH.
>. everything else: keep it in APACHE_2_0_BRANCH
I like as well.
>looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_BRANCH to HEAD:
>
>. netware build changes: no opinion, but I don't see how it is going
> to hurt anything
Actually, going back to the old auth we will need netware fixes over
on APACHE_2_0_BRANCH, but nothing too horrible. Same on Win32.
>. LDAP changes to treat one API like another: no opinion, but I don't
> see how it is going to hurt anything
> this is:
>
> *) Replace APU_HAS_LDAPSSL_CLIENT_INIT with APU_HAS_LDAP_NETSCAPE_SSL
> as set by apr-util in util_ldap.c. This should allow mod_ldap
> to work with the Netscape/Mozilla LDAP library. [Øyvin Sømme
> <so...@oslo.westerngeco.slb.com>, Graham Leggett]
>
>
>. everything else: needs to be in APACHE_2_0_BRANCH IMHO
>
> this includes
>
> *) Fix the building of cgi command lines when the query string
> contains '='. PR 13914 [Ville Skyttä <vi...@iki.fi>,
> Jeff Trawick]
+1
> *) Reorder the definitions for mod_ldap and mod_auth_ldap within
> config.m4 to make sure the parent mod_ldap is defined first.
> This ensures that mod_ldap comes before mod_auth_ldap in the
> httpd.conf file, which is necessary for mod_auth_ldap to load.
> PR 14256 [Graham Leggett]
+1
> *) Fix critical bug in new --enable-v4-mapped configure option
> implementation which broke IPv4 listening sockets on some
> systems. [hiroyuki hanai <ha...@imgsrc.co.jp>]
+1
> as well as some doc fixes
Of course the old auth 'user' docs need to come back to 2_0_BRANCH
so that the 2_0 docs are legible to all 2.0 users. And that work was
never really finished, so time to get busting on cvs HEAD so we start
to get close to a 2_1 developers release :-) I suspect many how-to's
need to change for the auth module renames as well.
Just a reminder to all... where
cvs co -d httpd-2.1 httpd-2.0 will get you cvs development head.
cvs co -r APACHE_2_0_BRANCH httpd-2.0 will get you cvs 2.0 head.
it's easy to switch, cvs up or cvs co with -A gets you head, while -r gets
you back on the branch.
Bill
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_release.h
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> My train-of-thought is that if that the user's 2.0.43 conf still works,
> we succeeded :-)
+1
Joshua.
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_release.h
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
At 12:23 PM 11/23/2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
>On 23 Nov 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
>>
>> . auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
>> going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
>
>Fine, but can we PLEASE think about the names a little more. As I've
>said, some of those changes are simply gratuitous and make the
>documentation nasty.
>
>At least mod_authz_host should go back to mod_access.
My train-of-thought is that if that the user's 2.0.43 conf still works,
we succeeded :-)
Bill
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_release.h
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On 23 Nov 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
>
> . auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
> going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
Fine, but can we PLEASE think about the names a little more. As I've
said, some of those changes are simply gratuitous and make the
documentation nasty.
At least mod_authz_host should go back to mod_access.
Joshua.
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_release.h
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org> writes:
> At 06:50 AM 11/22/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >wrowe@apache.org writes:
> >
> >> wrowe 2002/11/21 18:08:42
> >>
> >> Modified: include ap_release.h
> >> Log:
> >> Branch tag APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now contains Apache 2.0 development.
> >>
> >> Persist cvs HEAD as Apache 2.1.
> >>
> >> After discussion at AC, a number of individuals including Sander, Will,
> >> Justin and Rich will begin reverting the appropriate changes from the
> >> APACHE_2_0_BRANCH, while continuing their documentation and development
> >> of the Authorization reorganization on this branch.
> >
> >Does "reverting the appropriate changes" mean "decide which stuff
> >now tagged APACHE_2_0_BRANCH should be deferred until 2.1" or does it
> >mean "as fixes are committed to HEAD, decide which of them should be
> >available in Apache 2.0" or does it mean something else?
>
> No. After Sander's comments, APACHE_2_0_BRANCH is now from CVS
> head. We can selectively revert those changes that break compatibility,
> introduce potential buggyness, or simply aren't complete.
That sounds a lot like "decide which stuff now tagged
APACHE_2_0_BRANCH should be deferred until 2.1" :) (or at least
"deferred until after 2.0.44").
looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_43 to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH:
. auth changes: IIRC, smart people decided the auth changes aren't
going to hurt anybody, so that's okay with me
. everything else: keep it in APACHE_2_0_BRANCH
looking over diffs from APACHE_2_0_BRANCH to HEAD:
. netware build changes: no opinion, but I don't see how it is going
to hurt anything
. LDAP changes to treat one API like another: no opinion, but I don't
see how it is going to hurt anything
this is:
*) Replace APU_HAS_LDAPSSL_CLIENT_INIT with APU_HAS_LDAP_NETSCAPE_SSL
as set by apr-util in util_ldap.c. This should allow mod_ldap
to work with the Netscape/Mozilla LDAP library. [Øyvin Sømme
<so...@oslo.westerngeco.slb.com>, Graham Leggett]
. everything else: needs to be in APACHE_2_0_BRANCH IMHO
this includes
*) Fix the building of cgi command lines when the query string
contains '='. PR 13914 [Ville Skyttä <vi...@iki.fi>,
Jeff Trawick]
*) Reorder the definitions for mod_ldap and mod_auth_ldap within
config.m4 to make sure the parent mod_ldap is defined first.
This ensures that mod_ldap comes before mod_auth_ldap in the
httpd.conf file, which is necessary for mod_auth_ldap to load.
PR 14256 [Graham Leggett]
*) Fix critical bug in new --enable-v4-mapped configure option
implementation which broke IPv4 listening sockets on some
systems. [hiroyuki hanai <ha...@imgsrc.co.jp>]
as well as some doc fixes
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/include ap_release.h
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
At 06:50 AM 11/22/2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>wrowe@apache.org writes:
>
>> wrowe 2002/11/21 18:08:42
>>
>> Modified: include ap_release.h
>> Log:
>> Branch tag APACHE_2_0_BRANCH now contains Apache 2.0 development.
>>
>> Persist cvs HEAD as Apache 2.1.
>>
>> After discussion at AC, a number of individuals including Sander, Will,
>> Justin and Rich will begin reverting the appropriate changes from the
>> APACHE_2_0_BRANCH, while continuing their documentation and development
>> of the Authorization reorganization on this branch.
>
>Does "reverting the appropriate changes" mean "decide which stuff
>now tagged APACHE_2_0_BRANCH should be deferred until 2.1" or does it
>mean "as fixes are committed to HEAD, decide which of them should be
>available in Apache 2.0" or does it mean something else?
No. After Sander's comments, APACHE_2_0_BRANCH is now from CVS
head. We can selectively revert those changes that break compatibility,
introduce potential buggyness, or simply aren't complete.
One of the HUGEST hassles is the effort to choose month-old patches
to backport into 2.0. This was barely on folks' radar. Now that it's done,
we can all be alert to those patches we are committing that we also want
to backport.
I don't want to see maintenance die on the 2.0 branch, and as Sander
pointed out, most of the patches this last month were 'goodness'(sm).
Bill
>Shall I start a section in STATUS for votes on whether to move various
>fixes in HEAD back to APACHE_2_0_BRANCH? hiroyuki hanai's fix to
>listen.c would be the first candidate AFAICT.
Since we split at 2002/11/21 18:08:42, please start taking names and
kicking ass to previous patches that don't belong on the 2.0 branch.
And looking forward, please remember that the 2_0_BRANCH is CTR,
so you should commit to CVS HEAD and then ask for a vote, or take
a vote on applying to both branches (simply mention you want the patch
applied to both 2.0 and 2.1.) If it's voted on first, we will apply to both
when it's committed.
Bill