You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Daniel Ruggeri <da...@bitnebula.com> on 2020/07/30 20:26:05 UTC
[RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Hi, all;
I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
which have precedence for holding up a release.
To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 7/29/2020 10:26 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.45:
> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>
> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
> sha1: 98d470cee244a41ac933f44428ebf10149639a8c *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha256: 653b4f24eca6852e1b6248f6dc9a6674b647fdc4d1d4583f46bd8a6c8ee049ae
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
> sha512:
> 8b1e9c22371c75efd2466c69ed48782ddcecfe0a3ff143ca3f9cb720ea2aee56f5c323a9e3ae80cd5c44f1601b5894879af03b6b3729a8ca0555bb5193a1296a
> *httpd-2.4.45.tar.gz
>
> The SVN tag is '2.4.45' at r1880411.
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 30/07/2020 à 22:26, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
> Hi, all;
> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>
> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
>
> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
(sorry if double post, but the first one seems to have been filtered by
the ML)
For what I will test, 2.4.45+r1880438 (i.e. 2.4.46?) is just good to go.
Tested on Ubuntu 20.04
Gcc 9.3.0
maintainer-mode
APR latest 1.7.x branch (i.e 1.7.0+)
APR-UTIL latest 1.6.x branch (i.e 1.6.1+)
Tested with event, prefork, worker
My prefork built is no more failing (should have been fixed by the
Ubuntu 20.04 upgrade a few months ago)
For some reason, I'm not able to install Protocol::HTTP2::Client. (not
related to httpd and the test framework)
It fails during testing and is not installed.
Attached, some coverage data related to my test environment.
The index.html file gives some numbers about test coverage.
If the archive is extracted, you can use the links in index.html go to
the corresponding gcov files to see what have been tested with our
current test framework, at least on my VM.
Search for #####. These lines have not been executed.
This may give someone ideas on where to add new tests
Thanks for RMing (and sorry for spotting just a bit to late this APLOGNO
issue)
CJ
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release
httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 31/07/2020 à 15:36, Rainer Jung a écrit :
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro
> argument) IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything
> else worth waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
>
> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
> Am 30.07.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
>> Hi, all;
>> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
>> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
>> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>>
>> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on
>> the vine.
>>
>> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
>
IMHO, good to go as-is.
The warning with VC built on Windows are mostly related to int vs
size_t. Not really an issue for me.
They should be fixed whenever possible, but it can wait.
Some can be triggered by gcc with -Wextra.
This could maybe be added in the maintainer built.
CJ
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:37 PM Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
> IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
> waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
I think we are OK to T&R again.
>
> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
+1
Regards;
Yann.
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Jan Ehrhardt <ph...@ehrhardt.nl>.
Rainer Jung in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:36:16
+0200):
>Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
>right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
AFAIK, Steffen is not working on them and nobody else from the
Apachelounge or Apachehaus community.
>The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
>IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
>waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
I had alredy built and tested 2.4.45 for Windows my self. If the APLOGNO
fix is there it is a +1 for 2.4.46 as well.
--
Jan
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release
httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1
> On Jul 31, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:37 AM Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>>
>> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
>> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>>
>
> Not me. I don't think we should wait on them.
>
>> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
>> IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
>> waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
>
> Good to go from my POV.
>
>> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
>
> +1
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:37 AM Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:
>
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
Not me. I don't think we should wait on them.
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
> IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
> waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
Good to go from my POV.
> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
+1
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release
httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <da...@bitnebula.com>.
Agreed - thank you (everyone) for the quick rally to fix this and for
confirming we don't have other work needing to be done. I apologize for
taking almost 24 hours to ACK and get us moving again.
I've updated CHANGES and will send a VOTE shortly
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 7/31/2020 1:28 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Since here were lots of "good-to-go, let's roll" one note though: the
> current CHANGES does not yet a section for 2.4.46, cause normally
> APLOGNO doesn't get noted on CHANGES. In this case it might be
> something like
>
> *) mod_proxy_fcgi: Fix build on Windows.
>
> and credits for Eric (who fixed it on trunk) oand/or Christophe, who
> backported it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rainer
>
> Am 31.07.2020 um 15:36 schrieb Rainer Jung:
>> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
>> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>>
>> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro
>> argument) IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything
>> else worth waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
>>
>> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>> Am 30.07.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
>>> Hi, all;
>>> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
>>> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable
>>> warnings
>>> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>>>
>>> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on
>>> the vine.
>>>
>>> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
Re: Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release
httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Since here were lots of "good-to-go, let's roll" one note though: the
current CHANGES does not yet a section for 2.4.46, cause normally
APLOGNO doesn't get noted on CHANGES. In this case it might be something
like
*) mod_proxy_fcgi: Fix build on Windows.
and credits for Eric (who fixed it on trunk) oand/or Christophe, who
backported it.
Best regards,
Rainer
Am 31.07.2020 um 15:36 schrieb Rainer Jung:
> Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
> right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
>
> The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
> IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
> waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
>
> Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
> Am 30.07.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
>> Hi, all;
>> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
>> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
>> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>>
>> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the
>> vine.
>>
>> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
Pending fixes or reroll? Was: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Since there wasn't yet any reaction to Daniel's question: Is anybody
right now working on more warnings fixes for Windows?
The most prominent one (missing APLOGNo number = missing macro argument)
IMHO was already fixed by Christophe in r1880438. Anything else worth
waiting for or are we (is Daniel) good to go for 2.4.46?
Concerning lua I'd say the fix(es) for 5.4.0 need a bit more testing.
Regards,
Rainer
Am 30.07.2020 um 22:26 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:
> Hi, all;
> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>
> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
>
> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.45
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 30/07/2020 à 22:26, Daniel Ruggeri a écrit :
> Hi, all;
> I thank everyone for their testing and quick feedback. While we had
> enough votes and positive feedback, we have some easily fixable warnings
> which have precedence for holding up a release.
>
> To that end, I will close this vote and declare 2.4.45 dead on the vine.
>
> I will roll 2.4.46 when we are all buttoned up with the warnings.
For what I will test, 2.4.45+r1880438 (i.e. 2.4.46?) is just good to go.
Tested on Ubuntu 20.04
Gcc 9.3.0
maintainer-mode
APR latest 1.7.x branch (i.e 1.7.0+)
APR-UTIL latest 1.6.x branch (i.e 1.6.1+)
Tested with event, prefork, worker
My prefork built is no more failing :) (should have been fixed by the
Ubuntu 20.04 upgrade a few months ago)
For some reason, I'm not able to install Protocol::HTTP2::Client. (not
related to httpd and the test framework)
It fails during testing and is not installed.
Attached, some coverage data related to my test environment.
The index.html file gives some numbers about test coverage.
If the archive is extracted, you can use the links in index.html go to
the corresponding gcov files to see what have been tested with our
current test framework, at least on my VM.
Search for #####. These lines have not been executed.
This may give someone ideas on where to add new tests :)
Thanks for RMing (and sorry for spotting just a bit to late this APLOGNO
issue)
CJ