You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org> on 2006/04/24 08:20:59 UTC
Joint Release of all branches
Folks,
With all of our branches close to release, it strikes me as a good
idea to send out a single release announcement for all three. This
allows us to send as clear as possible a message about what we want
people to use and why. Considering:
1) httpd 2.2.2 is the best version ever and everyone should
upgrade to it.
2) for folks stuck on 2.0, 2.0.5(7|8) is also available. But
you really should upgrade to 2.2.2.
3) for folks stuck on 1.3, 1.3.35 is also available. But you
really should upgrade to 2.2.2 because that's the best
version ever.
One announcement, three releases, one message. Did we mention that
you should upgrade to 2.2.2?
It looks like the 2.2.2 RC is the closest to being ready for release,
with the 72 hour window on www.a.o running out Monday night Pacific.
However, I would like to urge holding back the release until the
branches can catch up.
For 2.0, we probably should re-roll 2.0.58 with the copyright
statement reversion and take a new vote
For 1.3, Jim has stated his intention to T&R last Tuesday in order to
align with the other two releases, but I don't think this has
happened yet. Jim, would you have time to roll tomorrow? Otherwise I
may be able to do it, perhaps with a little help from my friends.
If no one objects, I can take a stab at the announcement tomorrow.
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Apr 29, 2006, at 8:43 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
> Non-binding:
> +1 Graham Leggett
Argh... Graham's on the PMC. No idea why I put him in this section,
his vote should be in the section above.
My apologies,
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:43:05AM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
> I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw
> them over the wall.
2.0.58 has already hit the mirrors, I'll update the website with
announcements once Paul has mailed the 2.2.2 announcements. That seems
closest to what consensus was suggesting.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Sander Temme wrote:
>
> OK, let's tally the votes:
>
> httpd-2.2.2
>
> +1 Paul Querna (RM)
> +1 Jim Jagielski
> +1 Ruediger Pluem
> +1 Sander Temme
> +1 Brad Nicholes
> +1 Colm MacCárthaigh
> +1 Mladen Turk
> +1 Joe Orton
>
> Non-binding:
>
> +1 Gustavo Lopes
> +1 Jorge Schrauwen
> +1 Oden Eriksson
> +1 Graham Leggett
>
> "The Doctor" reported the ucp issue when building -DDEBUG on certain
> platforms. This is not a regression. He later reported "Major Failure"
> but has not responded to our questions about analyzing his issues.
>
> This drop has been serving www.apache.org since April 21.
I have pushed 2.2.2 to the mirrors. We can do the release announcement
24 hours from now.
-Paul
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Sander Temme wrote:
>
>> I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw
>> them over the wall.
>
> +1 across the board, some -win32-src.zips (.58 since .57 was scuttled)
> and installers are on the way.
Executive decision, anyone who's ever installed httpd in the last three
years, or any other program for that matter, now has the MSI engine. The
.exe's won't be generated or distributed ever again.
Bill
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Sander Temme wrote:
>
> I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw
> them over the wall.
+1 across the board, some -win32-src.zips (.58 since .57 was scuttled)
and installers are on the way.
There remain issues with VisualStudio 2005 but that's no-nevermind since
we previously decided it's safest to stay at VC6 and continue to plug in
without incident into ActiveState builds of the current python & perl.
On another note, the zlib 1.1.4 doesn't change in 2.0.58 that we will
bundle, although the more I think about this, the more trivial it is to
change over to linking to zlib 1.2.3 as a loadable library. The key
issue is -binary compatibility-. mod_deflate never exported the functions
it built form zlib 1.1.4 so there's no pain there. That's a project change
that must wait for some arbitrary 2.0.59 if it came to pass.
On openssl bundled, almost anyone who was already linking openssl was using
openssl 0.9.7, which has been around longer than 2.0.43 IIRC. So 0.9.7i will
be bundled for these 2.0.58 binaries. But we don't have to make that same
assumption for 2.2, and in fact 0.9.8 nicely corresponds to our release 2.2.0.
So for our first 2.2.2 binaries, we will bundle 0.9.8a.
For the zlib library and openssl builds, I tweak a few things to make .pdb
backtrace information available. Those short patches will be dropped into
/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/ since only the user who tries to make something
compatible to our binaries actually cares. For everyone else, they are free
to tweak zlib/openssl whatever interesting way they like.
Bill
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
OK, let's tally the votes:
httpd-2.2.2
+1 Paul Querna (RM)
+1 Jim Jagielski
+1 Ruediger Pluem
+1 Sander Temme
+1 Brad Nicholes
+1 Colm MacCárthaigh
+1 Mladen Turk
+1 Joe Orton
Non-binding:
+1 Gustavo Lopes
+1 Jorge Schrauwen
+1 Oden Eriksson
+1 Graham Leggett
"The Doctor" reported the ucp issue when building -DDEBUG on certain
platforms. This is not a regression. He later reported "Major
Failure" but has not responded to our questions about analyzing his
issues.
This drop has been serving www.apache.org since April 21.
httpd-2.0.58
+1 Colm MacCárthaigh (RM)
+1 Ruediger Pluem
+1 Sander Temme
+1 Jim Jagielski
+1 Brad Nicholes
+1 André Malo
+1 Joe Schaefer
+1 Jeff Trawick
Non-binding:
+1 The Doctor
That comes to nine +1 votes and zero -1 votes.
apache_1.3.35
+1 Jim Jagielski (RM)
+1 Colm MacCárthaigh
+1 David McCreedy
+1 Sander Temme
+1 Jeff Trawick
Five +1 votes and zero -1 votes.
I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw
them over the wall.
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:49:29PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>What I'd like to propose is 1) wait for the unified announce on Wed night,
>>2) cease pushing out any 1.3 or 2.0 specific product announcements.
>
> Whatever way we end up cutting this, can we agree to at least let
> packagers@httpd.apache.org know about the 3 different releases? Either
> all in one go, or seperately.
You are the RM (of one of the above) :)
I'm a little frustrated though that it would be necessary to add yet another
broadcast channel. It's really up to packagers@ to follow announce@ themselves.
AIUI packagers@ was a channel for discussing packaging methods, nothing more.
If it's reduplicating the efforts of dev@, testers@ and announce@, it's time
to shutter it.
Bill
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:49:29PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> What I'd like to propose is 1) wait for the unified announce on Wed night,
> 2) cease pushing out any 1.3 or 2.0 specific product announcements.
Whatever way we end up cutting this, can we agree to at least let
packagers@httpd.apache.org know about the 3 different releases? Either
all in one go, or seperately.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net> wrote:
>
>>Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
>>releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
>
> My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week
> is *very* confusing to our users. Either 2.0 and 1.3 get bundled with
> the 2.2 announcement, or we shouldn't announce those releases at all.
I don't think this is *as confusing* as the week we announce, say, just 2.0.
They at least will see them all. Five weeks from now, when only an announce
from 2.0 is pushed out, that will be more confusing.
What I'd like to propose is 1) wait for the unified announce on Wed night,
2) cease pushing out any 1.3 or 2.0 specific product announcements.
Vote and promote a release for 1.3 or 2.0 into dist/httpd and update the 2.2
announce file at that time (without broadcast). When the next mainstream
release (hopefully very shortly after) is ready to roll, the user will be
notified that updated 1.3 and 2.0 legacy releases are available.
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 4/24/06, Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org> wrote:
> How about, we lead with 2.2.2, and note in the announcement that 2.0
> and 1.3 releases should be available later this week. This goes out
> to the Slashdots etc. of this world. When 2.0 and 1.3 are ready, we
> can update the website but not send out a release announcement.
+1. -- justin
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Sander Temme <sc...@apache.org>.
On Apr 24, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net> wrote:
>> Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
>> releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
>
> My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week
> is *very* confusing to our users. Either 2.0 and 1.3 get bundled with
> the 2.2 announcement, or we shouldn't announce those releases at all.
How about, we lead with 2.2.2, and note in the announcement that 2.0
and 1.3 releases should be available later this week. This goes out
to the Slashdots etc. of this world. When 2.0 and 1.3 are ready, we
can update the website but not send out a release announcement.
>>> For 2.0, we probably should re-roll 2.0.58 with the copyright
>>> statement reversion and take a new vote
>>
>> -1, there's been enough back and forth on this. The current status is
>> that the existing candidate is good for release unless people start
>> reverting their +1's, which so far - has not happened.
>
> As I have stated before, I believe it's completely inappropriate for
> us to be releasing files with bogus copyright years. We have been
> explicitly informed by ASF officers and counsel that placing incorrect
> copyright years on files is something that we should not be doing. I
> really don't know how much clearer this issue can be. -- justin
I will revert my vote so we can have a re-roll. Re-rolling today
should allow us to release 1.3 and 2.0 concurrently, at least.
S.
--
sctemme@apache.org http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 05:40:45PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> If you feel that strongly about it, veto the code change, and I'll tag
> and roll 2.0.58.
O.k., this is coming anyway :)
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:15:01AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > -1, there's been enough back and forth on this. The current status is
> > that the existing candidate is good for release unless people start
> > reverting their +1's, which so far - has not happened.
>
> As I have stated before, I believe it's completely inappropriate for
> us to be releasing files with bogus copyright years.
I don't think there's any dispute over that. The question is whether
this is important enough to waste another release cycle over.
Faced with that, I don't see how a legal nit over the copyright line
should cause people to have to go to the trouble of testing yet another
candidate tarball.
As we saw with APR, there are only so many unreleased candidates a group
can take before they just stop bothering to test them.
There is a complete lack of direction from ASF board/legal on this btw,
despite your assertion.
If you feel that strongly about it, veto the code change, and I'll tag
and roll 2.0.58.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net> wrote:
> Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
> releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week
is *very* confusing to our users. Either 2.0 and 1.3 get bundled with
the 2.2 announcement, or we shouldn't announce those releases at all.
> > For 2.0, we probably should re-roll 2.0.58 with the copyright
> > statement reversion and take a new vote
>
> -1, there's been enough back and forth on this. The current status is
> that the existing candidate is good for release unless people start
> reverting their +1's, which so far - has not happened.
As I have stated before, I believe it's completely inappropriate for
us to be releasing files with bogus copyright years. We have been
explicitly informed by ASF officers and counsel that placing incorrect
copyright years on files is something that we should not be doing. I
really don't know how much clearer this issue can be. -- justin
Re: Joint Release of all branches
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:20:59PM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
> It looks like the 2.2.2 RC is the closest to being ready for release,
> with the 72 hour window on www.a.o running out Monday night Pacific.
> However, I would like to urge holding back the release until the
> branches can catch up.
Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
> For 2.0, we probably should re-roll 2.0.58 with the copyright
> statement reversion and take a new vote
-1, there's been enough back and forth on this. The current status is
that the existing candidate is good for release unless people start
reverting their +1's, which so far - has not happened.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net