split off or mark docu commits
I'm really happy that our docu receives such great attention recently and is going to become much better as it seems ... but due to the huge amount of commit messages I am no longer able to review *code* commit messages quickly when I have to pick 3 code commits out of 300 docu commits. I would really like that we either split off the commit messages into a separate docu-commit list, or at least mark them with an additional X-Committype: docu or something like that so that its possible to easily filter them. Gün.
Re: split off or mark docu commits
- Original Message - I'm really happy that our docu receives such great attention recently and is going to become much better as it seems ... but due to the huge amount of commit messages I am no longer able to review *code* commit messages quickly when I have to pick 3 code commits out of 300 docu commits. I would really like that we either split off the commit messages into a separate docu-commit list, or at least mark them with an additional X-Committype: docu or something like that so that its possible to easily filter them. An easy way would be to filter out stuff has docs/manual/ or site/ in the subject. But it's not going to be very accurate: Some people like to commit code changes along with the appropriate docs changes.. Gün. i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: split off or mark docu commits
separate docu-commit list, or at least mark them with an additional X-Committype: docu or something like that so that its possible to easily filter them. An easy way would be to filter out stuff has docs/manual/ or site/ in the subject. But it's not going to be very accurate: Some people like to commit code changes along with the appropriate docs changes.. right now you're probably best off to filter out humbedooh, joes, rbowen, buildbot and igalic. Gün. i -- Igor Galić Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883 Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org URL: http://brainsware.org/ GPG: 6880 4155 74BD FD7C B515 2EA5 4B1D 9E08 A097 C9AE
Re: [DISCUSS] CMS site migration
Joe, thanks for your work on this, and your patience through the process. --Rich On May 6, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Over on docs@ one of the recent conversations was around moving the site documentation to the CMS, starting first with the httpd site as a testbed. After several hours of hacking on the site that has now been accomplished, so we'd please like everyone to review and comment on the httpd staging site now available at http://httpd.staging.apache.org/ which is perfectly compatible with the CMS's bookmarklet. There are a few remaining syntax/style issues that need addressing, but otherwise the content has been successfully migrated from xdoc to markdown. The sooner we can push this work into production the less hassle it will be to keep the xdoc and content trees in sync using two separate build systems. After a few days have passed if there are no outstanding issues remaining I plan to ask for a VOTE to finish the migration of httpd-site to the CMS. Thanks in advance for your consideration! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen rbo...@apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] CMS site migration
Do you have details on the on the new CMS, format, conversions, etc? We us the httpd current format at work for our internal modules and might want to transition to the CMS as well. Thanks, Brian On May 6, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Over on docs@ one of the recent conversations was around moving the site documentation to the CMS, starting first with the httpd site as a testbed. After several hours of hacking on the site that has now been accomplished, so we'd please like everyone to review and comment on the httpd staging site now available at http://httpd.staging.apache.org/ which is perfectly compatible with the CMS's bookmarklet. There are a few remaining syntax/style issues that need addressing, but otherwise the content has been successfully migrated from xdoc to markdown. The sooner we can push this work into production the less hassle it will be to keep the xdoc and content trees in sync using two separate build systems. After a few days have passed if there are no outstanding issues remaining I plan to ask for a VOTE to finish the migration of httpd-site to the CMS. Thanks in advance for your consideration!
[Result] Re: [Vote] Add commentary system to httpd docs
With an impressive 8 x +1 binding votes and no -1's, as well as +2 from other docs@ readers, I believe we can call this vote passed with flying colors :). We will begin rolling out the commentary system in the trunk docs shortly, and then we'll see where the wind of the web takes us. I suspect I'll be following up on this with some discussions on the more specific details of how we should run this comment system later this week, but for now, let's just enjoy it for a few days, and see how it plays out. The current questions we need to discuss can be found at http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DocsCommentSystem#Questions_for_further_discussion so do give them a read-through and add a question or two if you have any. With regards and humble thanks for your support, Daniel On 04-05-2012 15:58, Daniel Gruno wrote: I'll be a bad boy and top-post on this reply, as well as add dev@ to the list of recipients. In docs@, we have been discussing the possibility of adding comments to the various pages in our documentation. As the discussion has progressed, we have settled on the idea of trying out Disqus as a commentary system for the documentation, and I have authored a proposal on the practical implementation of this. As this is a rather large change to the documentation (if passed), Eric Covener advised me to notify both mailing lists as well as give a bit more information on how exactly this will work and why we felt it was a good idea to try out a commenting system. That information is located at http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/DocsCommentSystem We have, to give it a test spin, rolled out these proposed changed to the rewrite section of the trunk documentation, http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/rewrite/ (do note that the mod_rewrite reference document is NOT a part of this test), and we'd very much like you to review these changes and let us know what you think of this solution. If everybody is happy about it, we can try to roll it out on a bit more pages, and see how it is received by the general population. So, I am calling a vote on whether or not to proceed with rolling out this test to a portion of our trunk documentation for further testing. [+/-1] Add commentary system to the trunk documentation. With regards, Daniel.
Re: [DISCUSS] CMS site migration
See http://www.apache/org/dev/cms and http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref for details on the CMS. - Original Message - From: Brian J. France br...@brianfrance.com To: dev@httpd.apache.org; Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: d...@httpd.apache.org d...@httpd.apache.org Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CMS site migration Do you have details on the on the new CMS, format, conversions, etc? We us the httpd current format at work for our internal modules and might want to transition to the CMS as well. Thanks, Brian On May 6, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Over on docs@ one of the recent conversations was around moving the site documentation to the CMS, starting first with the httpd site as a testbed. After several hours of hacking on the site that has now been accomplished, so we'd please like everyone to review and comment on the httpd staging site now available at http://httpd.staging.apache.org/ which is perfectly compatible with the CMS's bookmarklet. There are a few remaining syntax/style issues that need addressing, but otherwise the content has been successfully migrated from xdoc to markdown. The sooner we can push this work into production the less hassle it will be to keep the xdoc and content trees in sync using two separate build systems. After a few days have passed if there are no outstanding issues remaining I plan to ask for a VOTE to finish the migration of httpd-site to the CMS. Thanks in advance for your consideration!
Re: [DISCUSS] CMS site migration
First link should be : http://www.apache.org/dev/cms http://www.apache.org/dev/cms Le 07/05/2012 16:58, Joe Schaefer a écrit : See http://www.apache/org/dev/cms and http://www.apache.org/dev/cmsref for details on the CMS. - Original Message - From: Brian J. Francebr...@brianfrance.com To: dev@httpd.apache.org; Joe Schaeferjoe_schae...@yahoo.com Cc: d...@httpd.apache.orgd...@httpd.apache.org Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 8:10 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CMS site migration Do you have details on the on the new CMS, format, conversions, etc? We us the httpd current format at work for our internal modules and might want to transition to the CMS as well. Thanks, Brian On May 6, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Over on docs@ one of the recent conversations was around moving the site documentation to the CMS, starting first with the httpd site as a testbed. After several hours of hacking on the site that has now been accomplished, so we'd please like everyone to review and comment on the httpd staging site now available at http://httpd.staging.apache.org/ which is perfectly compatible with the CMS's bookmarklet. There are a few remaining syntax/style issues that need addressing, but otherwise the content has been successfully migrated from xdoc to markdown. The sooner we can push this work into production the less hassle it will be to keep the xdoc and content trees in sync using two separate build systems. After a few days have passed if there are no outstanding issues remaining I plan to ask for a VOTE to finish the migration of httpd-site to the CMS. Thanks in advance for your consideration!
Re: are the *.exp files still used by any platform?
On 5/1/2012 4:00 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Hi Eric, Am 01.05.2012 16:30, schrieb Eric Covener: Even 2.0 seems to just generate libmod_foo.exp then pass the generated file to the linker, but I wouldn't go out of your way removing them from 2.0 and 2.2 if they aren't bothering anyone. hmmm, so you say axe from 2.4.x/HEAD but keep ìn 2.2.x and 2.0.x?? Why keep non-used/non-functional files? Not that the files do bother me in any way, and I dont care about - but now since we found they are obsolete why not clean them up? Because that would be another diff that the reviewer needs to substantiate. Maintenance branches should only have necessary, not cosmetic maintenance. This is why it is evil to do major whitespace corrections on those branches, it just muddies the picture for the rest of us.
Re: Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64 while building 2.4.2
On 5/1/2012 7:03 PM, Fred Moyer wrote: On OS X 10.7, gcc 4.2.1, with apr-1.4.5 and apr-util 1.4.1, I encounter the following error attempting to build httpd 2.4.2. I didn't see any architecture specific code in srclib/apr/include/apr_file_info.h. Any thoughts? ./configure --prefix=/Users/phred/dev/httpd24 --enable-so --with-included-apr make ... gcc -std=gnu99 -g -O2 -DDARWIN -DSIGPROCMASK_SETS_THREAD_MASK -no-cpp-precomp -DDARWIN_10-I. -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/os/unix -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/include -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/srclib/apr/include -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/srclib/apr-util/include -I/usr/local/include -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/aaa -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/cache -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/core -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/database -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/filters -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/ldap -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/loggers -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/lua -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/proxy -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/session -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/ssl -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/test -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/server -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/arch/unix -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/dav/main -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/generators -I/Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/modules/mappers -c /Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/server/buildmark.c /Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/srclib/apr/libtool --silent --mode=link gcc -std=gnu99 -g -O2-o httpd modules.lo buildmark.o -export-dynamic server/libmain.la modules/core/libmod_so.la modules/http/libmod_http.la server/mpm/event/libevent.la os/unix/libos.la -L/usr/local/lib -lpcre /Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/srclib/apr-util/libaprutil-1.la -lexpat -liconv /Users/phred/dev/httpd-2.4.2/srclib/apr/libapr-1.la -lpthread Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: _apr_dir_open$INODE64, referenced from: _process_resource_config_nofnmatch in libmain.a(config.o) _process_resource_config_fnmatch in libmain.a(config.o) _apr_dir_read$INODE64, referenced from: _process_resource_config_nofnmatch in libmain.a(config.o) _process_resource_config_fnmatch in libmain.a(config.o) _apr_file_info_get$INODE64, referenced from: _ap_pcfg_openfile in libmain.a(util.o) _file_func in libmain.a(util_expr_eval.o) _apr_stat$INODE64, referenced from: _check_errorlog_dir in libmain.a(core.o) _ap_process_fnmatch_configs in libmain.a(config.o) _ap_is_directory in libmain.a(util.o) _ap_is_rdirectory in libmain.a(util.o) _ap_mpm_set_coredumpdir in libmain.a(mpm_common.o) _ap_log_pid in libmain.a(log.o) _resolve_symlink in libmain.a(request.o) ... ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Symptomatic of trying to tweak your compile and link using CFLAGS which were compile only, rather that setting CC=gcc -mXX which is also the default linker, I believe. If not, you would want to set LD and LDSHARED appropriately.
Re: Status of Windows-work for 2.4.x
On 5/3/2012 8:47 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'm curious what the status of 2.4.x-on-Windows is... What else can we do to speed this along? Can't speak for anyone but myself; I am just recovering from a month of changing machines over and over again due to a dead critical/primary laptop. Now that I have two (impressed with the evolution of the Dell E6420, but absolutely wow'ed by the newest Sony SE series, except for its two cores not four, and a sort-of-icky chicklet keyboard) I stand a chance of now messing around with 2.4 branch and trunk once again. I'm thinking of a simple patch; in -D APR_SOCKET_DEBUG build of apr, assert() on a recheck of every on apr_os_sock_make(). If you inject a socket with ioctl flags in the wrong default mode, it should just freak out. This wouldn't be a release flag, of course but should get us to the bottom of this flaw.
Re: [VOTE] change gen_test_char to compile without APR
Vote: [X] change gen_test_char.c to always compile without APR for 2.4 forwards.
Re: [VOTE] change gen_test_char to compile without APR
On 5/3/2012 10:39 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote: Vote: [x] change gen_test_char.c to always compile without APR [ ] leave it as it is because ... just for the records (and to pop up this again now one week latter) here's my own vote; then so far sf, wrowe and me +1 for the change and nobody against within one week; I'll patch later trunk, and update my backport proposals unless someone speaks up now with something against. If the output is nonvolatile, you should structure the make such that we should conditionally build from the date stamps of the origin .c and output .c sources, just as we already do for the mod_ssl bison/yacc -b generated lexars.
Re: [DISCUSS] CMS site migration
On 5/6/2012 4:39 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: Over on docs@ one of the recent conversations was around moving the site documentation to the CMS, starting first with the httpd site as a testbed. After several hours of hacking on the site that has now been accomplished, so we'd please like everyone to review and comment on the httpd staging site now available at http://httpd.staging.apache.org/ which is perfectly compatible with the CMS's bookmarklet. There are a few remaining syntax/style issues that need addressing, but otherwise the content has been successfully migrated from xdoc to markdown. The sooner we can push this work into production the less hassle it will be to keep the xdoc and content trees in sync using two separate build systems. After a few days have passed if there are no outstanding issues remaining I plan to ask for a VOTE to finish the migration of httpd-site to the CMS. Thanks in advance for your consideration! And thank you for letting httpd repay a bit of debt to infra. Without the early staging of httpd release candidates, we couldn't accomplish major things like 2.4 revisions.
