You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com> on 2001/11/11 18:42:01 UTC
2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev
problems)
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Dale, please let me know if this fixes it. If so, we may want to
> bump the tag on this file for 2.0.28. -- justin
We're rapidly approaching the point in time where it would be better to
start on 2.0.29 than to keep bumping tags on 2.0.28 -- I don't know about
you all, but I'm starting to lose track of what changes have been tagged
in since the original 2.0.28 and which ones haven't.
Still, these rapid-fire tags are good, because they're forcing us to hunt
down these pesky bugs. We're starting to converge on something actually
stable. :)
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-devproblems)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > Why not just start over? Because then we pick up whatever brokenness
> > has crept into CVS in the mean time. Bill S. says Win32 won't build at
> > the moment with current HEAD.
Yeah, some generally weird things are happening on HEAD. Sticking with
2.0.28 is the way to go.
+1 for the cgid fix.
> I am for bumping the mod_cgid changes and rolling 2.0.28. We can make
> the tarball available today for voting on beta.
++1.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-devproblems)
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > > Dale, please let me know if this fixes it. If so, we may want to
> > > bump the tag on this file for 2.0.28. -- justin
> >
> > We're rapidly approaching the point in time where it would be better to
> > start on 2.0.29 than to keep bumping tags on 2.0.28 -- I don't know about
> > you all, but I'm starting to lose track of what changes have been tagged
> > in since the original 2.0.28 and which ones haven't.
>
> Basically, 2.0.28 has got OtherBill's fix to request.c to reduce the
> number of stats, plus some minor stuff, on top of the original tag. I
> would like to push Justin's mod_cgid fix into 2.0.28, re-roll, then make
> the tarballs public, and vote for beta. This won't even need additional
> testing on daedalus, because daedalus uses mod_cgi.
>
> Why not just start over? Because then we pick up whatever brokenness
> has crept into CVS in the mean time. Bill S. says Win32 won't build at
> the moment with current HEAD.
>
My bad. Win32 is building fine. I accidently hosed awk on my machine which causes all
sorts of weird build problems.
I am for bumping the mod_cgid changes and rolling 2.0.28. We can make the tarball
available today for voting on beta.
Bill
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two
apache/2.0.29-devproblems)
Posted by Greg Ames <gr...@remulak.net>.
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > Dale, please let me know if this fixes it. If so, we may want to
> > bump the tag on this file for 2.0.28. -- justin
>
> We're rapidly approaching the point in time where it would be better to
> start on 2.0.29 than to keep bumping tags on 2.0.28 -- I don't know about
> you all, but I'm starting to lose track of what changes have been tagged
> in since the original 2.0.28 and which ones haven't.
Basically, 2.0.28 has got OtherBill's fix to request.c to reduce the
number of stats, plus some minor stuff, on top of the original tag. I
would like to push Justin's mod_cgid fix into 2.0.28, re-roll, then make
the tarballs public, and vote for beta. This won't even need additional
testing on daedalus, because daedalus uses mod_cgi.
Why not just start over? Because then we pick up whatever brokenness
has crept into CVS in the mean time. Bill S. says Win32 won't build at
the moment with current HEAD.
Greg
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev problems)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 02:21:29PM -0500, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
>
> > From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:cliffwoolley@yahoo.com]
>
> > IMO, it'd be better to tag 2.0.29 right now with a pretty stable tree
> > that's by all accounts better than 2.0.28. It's that or get bug reports
> > for the next n weeks about things we've already fixed. Just a thought.
>
> I can't argue with that, except to point out that we've been saying exactly
> that for every release attempt for months. So why not release 2.0.28, tag
> 2.0.29, and release that if it turns out okay. A release every other day is
> better than no release for months.
Agreed. It is absolutely insane that we haven't made a release. Just call it
alpha and get it out there. If you want to call it beta, then fine. But
continuing to hold up releases to "just wanna fix this next bug" is wrong.
Our releases are *always* going to have bugs. We just want to hold if it is
a critical bug that a *lot* of people will see. If it doesn't link for some
small set of users... too bad. But everybody else can enjoy a new beta.
> Of course, someone needs to do the actual work of roll+release, which is
> obviously non-trivial. Since I can't volunteer to do it myself at the
> moment, I'll just shut up ;-)
Me neither :-(
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Greg Ames wrote:
> > > > - fix segfault in prefork
>
> wasn't ever a problem in 2.0.28
I just figured that out like half an hour ago. <sigh> Oh well, all the
better...
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug)
Posted by Greg Ames <gr...@remulak.net>.
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > > - fix infinite loop in mod_cgid
just bumped into 2.0.28. I'll straighten out the CHANGES file (PITA)
then roll.
> > > - fix segfault in prefork
wasn't ever a problem in 2.0.28
Greg
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev
problems)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > - fix infinite loop in mod_cgid
> > - fix segfault in prefork
> > - fix build problems on Win32 (mktemp)
> > - fix multithreading problem on BSDi (-D_REENTRANT)
> > - fix file cleanup problems in apr_proc_create
> Stop tagging 2.0.28. Half the changes above have nothing to do with bugs
> in the server. They are new features or improvements in the code.
Of course. I never said the whole thing should be retagged. Those first
two above would be really nice to have fixed, and the next three would be
kinda nice, but aren't crucial AFAIK. But in any event, with or without
these things,
> Just release 2.0.28 already.
+1.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev problems)
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
On Sunday 11 November 2001 11:39 am, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > IMO, it'd be better to tag 2.0.29 right now with a pretty stable tree
> > that's by all accounts better than 2.0.28. It's that or get bug reports
> > for the next n weeks about things we've already fixed. Just a thought.
>
> Scratch that. I see 2.0.28 was never officially rolled (even though some
> of us saw a candidate tarball). So retag 2.0.28 all you want, Greg, or
> don't. Anyway, forget I mentioned the 2.0.29 thing.
>
> FYI, I just checked, and these are the changes that have been committed
> since 2.0.28 was last tagged:
>
> - fix infinite loop in mod_cgid
> - fix segfault in prefork
> - fix build problems on Win32 (mktemp)
> - fix multithreading problem on BSDi (-D_REENTRANT)
> - fix file cleanup problems in apr_proc_create
> - fix BeOS User/Group problem
> - include for memcpy in apr/user/unix/userinfo.c
> - fail if shared modules without mod_so
> - warn if a module is loaded twice
> - various performance optimizations
> - ap_lingering_close changes
> - apr-util dbm changes
> - add debian layout
> - various doc fixes
Stop tagging 2.0.28. Half the changes above have nothing to do with bugs
in the server. They are new features or improvements in the code.
If we bump the 2.0.28 tag for all of these, we would be better to just roll 2.0.29.
Just release 2.0.28 already.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev
problems)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> IMO, it'd be better to tag 2.0.29 right now with a pretty stable tree
> that's by all accounts better than 2.0.28. It's that or get bug reports
> for the next n weeks about things we've already fixed. Just a thought.
Scratch that. I see 2.0.28 was never officially rolled (even though some
of us saw a candidate tarball). So retag 2.0.28 all you want, Greg, or
don't. Anyway, forget I mentioned the 2.0.29 thing.
FYI, I just checked, and these are the changes that have been committed
since 2.0.28 was last tagged:
- fix infinite loop in mod_cgid
- fix segfault in prefork
- fix build problems on Win32 (mktemp)
- fix multithreading problem on BSDi (-D_REENTRANT)
- fix file cleanup problems in apr_proc_create
- fix BeOS User/Group problem
- include for memcpy in apr/user/unix/userinfo.c
- fail if shared modules without mod_so
- warn if a module is loaded twice
- various performance optimizations
- ap_lingering_close changes
- apr-util dbm changes
- add debian layout
- various doc fixes
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
RE: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev problems)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:cliffwoolley@yahoo.com]
> IMO, it'd be better to tag 2.0.29 right now with a pretty stable tree
> that's by all accounts better than 2.0.28. It's that or get bug reports
> for the next n weeks about things we've already fixed. Just a thought.
I can't argue with that, except to point out that we've been saying exactly
that for every release attempt for months. So why not release 2.0.28, tag
2.0.29, and release that if it turns out okay. A release every other day is
better than no release for months.
Of course, someone needs to do the actual work of roll+release, which is
obviously non-trivial. Since I can't volunteer to do it myself at the
moment, I'll just shut up ;-)
Joshua.
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev
problems)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> The question we need to ask is simple. Is 2.0.28 better than 2.0.16?
> If so, then release it. If not, then don't.
Absolutely. But,
> Get 2.0.28 released. I'm about to make some major changes to the
> core, and it could destabilize 2.0.29 for a few days.
IMO, it'd be better to tag 2.0.29 right now with a pretty stable tree
that's by all accounts better than 2.0.28. It's that or get bug reports
for the next n weeks about things we've already fixed. Just a thought.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev problems)
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
On Sunday 11 November 2001 10:00 am, Joshua Slive wrote:
> > From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:cliffwoolley@yahoo.com]
> >
> > Still, these rapid-fire tags are good, because they're forcing us to hunt
> > down these pesky bugs. We're starting to converge on something actually
> > stable. :)
>
> Sure, but it's only people on this list who are testing. If we actually
> released something, we would have the help of many others.
>
> Do you know that more than 500 people downloaded 2.0.16 this morning. All
> those people are wasting their time!
The question we need to ask is simple. Is 2.0.28 better than 2.0.16? If so, then
release it. If not, then don't.
We can keep holding back releases until we think we have a GA quality
release. That won't mean that we can release it as a GA release. We can't
do that until it is being used on real live sites other than apache.org.
Get 2.0.28 released. I'm about to make some major changes to the core, and
it could destabilize 2.0.29 for a few days.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
RE: 2.0.29? (Re: apparent mod_cgid bug Re: Two apache/2.0.29-dev problems)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:cliffwoolley@yahoo.com]
> Still, these rapid-fire tags are good, because they're forcing us to hunt
> down these pesky bugs. We're starting to converge on something actually
> stable. :)
Sure, but it's only people on this list who are testing. If we actually
released something, we would have the help of many others.
Do you know that more than 500 people downloaded 2.0.16 this morning. All
those people are wasting their time!
Joshua.