AW: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group]

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Rich Bowen [mailto:rbo...@rcbowen.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. März 2018 21:11
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch
> 
> 
> On 02/22/2018 01:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Luca Toscano 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit
> >> concerned, there are still a lot of people using 2.2 and even not-up-
> to-date
> >> documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe we could send an
> email to
> >> users@ to announce this beforehand?
> >
> > We've long published 1.3 and 2.0 docs after the 2.4 launch. There's no
> > reason to drop 2.2 docs from the website entirely at this time. It is
> > a question whether the 2.2 docs are maintained, or simply kept
> > available in final form?
> >
> > Are you seeking to keep httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/ open for
> > revision? There need to be three project members willing to maintain
> > and review each others changes, or it is now time to simply close the
> > branch to most edits.
> >
> 
> I've been away for a bit, so I probably lack context here.
> 
> We didn't close the 1.3 docs to edit until ... well, they can still be
> edited, although it's been years since anyone has.
> 
> We should keep the 2.2 docs online, for sure. Making them continue to be
> updated is fine - they still have typos and broken links in them that
> need to be fixed.
> 
> The 1.3 and 2.0 docs died due to lack of interest, not due to policy.
> And, at some point (like after the 2.6 release, for example) we'll want
> to go back and add some rel canonical stuff in the headers to point to
> the newest version.
> 
> I'm just saying that I think it's fine to let them die a natural death,
> rather than killing them by policy.

+1

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[Rich Bowen]

On 02/22/2018 01:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Luca Toscano  wrote:


does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit
concerned, there are still a lot of people using 2.2 and even not-up-to-date
documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe we could send an email to
users@ to announce this beforehand?


We've long published 1.3 and 2.0 docs after the 2.4 launch. There's no
reason to drop 2.2 docs from the website entirely at this time. It is
a question whether the 2.2 docs are maintained, or simply kept
available in final form?

Are you seeking to keep httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/ open for
revision? There need to be three project members willing to maintain
and review each others changes, or it is now time to simply close the
branch to most edits.



I've been away for a bit, so I probably lack context here.

We didn't close the 1.3 docs to edit until ... well, they can still be 
edited, although it's been years since anyone has.


We should keep the 2.2 docs online, for sure. Making them continue to be 
updated is fine - they still have typos and broken links in them that 
need to be fixed.


The 1.3 and 2.0 docs died due to lack of interest, not due to policy. 
And, at some point (like after the 2.6 release, for example) we'll want 
to go back and add some rel canonical stuff in the headers to point to 
the newest version.


I'm just saying that I think it's fine to let them die a natural death, 
rather than killing them by policy.

ntml ath for non-ad users

[Elias Pereira]

Hello,

I configured a webservice with ntlm authentication through the
auth_ntlm_winbind module and it is working correctly. It happens that users
attempting to access the service without being in the domain can not access
it.

Have any way to bypass the non-AD user auth in apache?

Eg: Users (like me :D) that use linux as work machine

-- 
Elias Pereira

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

[Jim Jagielski]

+1... The whole idea is to find bugs and issues before
we do a formal release. We found one. It may have been
"minor" but releasing s/w with known bugs is not something
we should do. We release code when it's ready.

> On Mar 7, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Daniel Ruggeri  wrote:
> 
> On 2018-03-05 10:31, Joe Orton wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 09:56:50AM -0600, 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 2.4.31:
>>> [+1] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>> +1 on release for the record.  Tests and installs fine on Fedora
>> 27/x86_64.
>> ab is not the nicest pile of code, existence of bugs there are a long
>> way from showstopper material IMO, even if regressions - the tool is
>> completely ignored by a large % of our users.
>> Regards, Joe
> 
> 
> Hi, Joe
> I tend to agree in principle. At the same time, we've discussed here that 
> version numbers are cheap and that we generally would like to release more 
> often, so I wanted to 'walk the talk'. Thank you for testing things out. The 
> vote is not wasted since it builds confidence in the rest of the release.
> 
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

[Graham Leggett]

On 07 Mar 2018, at 4:52 PM, Daniel Ruggeri  wrote:

> I tend to agree in principle. At the same time, we've discussed here that 
> version numbers are cheap and that we generally would like to release more 
> often, so I wanted to 'walk the talk'. Thank you for testing things out. The 
> vote is not wasted since it builds confidence in the rest of the release.

+1 to this - we found a bug that impacts someone in a concrete way, we have a 
fix, let’s do a new release.

Regards,
Graham
—



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

[Daniel Ruggeri]

On 2018-03-05 10:31, Joe Orton wrote:

On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 09:56:50AM -0600, 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 2.4.31:



[+1] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!


+1 on release for the record.  Tests and installs fine on Fedora
27/x86_64.

ab is not the nicest pile of code, existence of bugs there are a long
way from showstopper material IMO, even if regressions - the tool is
completely ignored by a large % of our users.

Regards, Joe



Hi, Joe
I tend to agree in principle. At the same time, we've discussed here 
that version numbers are cheap and that we generally would like to 
release more often, so I wanted to 'walk the talk'. Thank you for 
testing things out. The vote is not wasted since it builds confidence in 
the rest of the release.


--
Daniel Ruggeri

[NOTICE] Intent to T httpd-2.4.32 in the next few days

[Daniel Ruggeri]

Hi, all;
   Third time's a charm, eh? After the fix for ab went in this past 
weekend, I'd like to propose another T with the included fix to be 
done Friday or Saturday. If there is no opposition, I will proceed after 
a few-hours-notice is shared with the list.



--
Daniel Ruggeri