Re: svn commit: r1868456 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Oct 14, 2019, at 3:14 PM, jaillet...@apache.org wrote:
> 
> Author: jailletc36
> Date: Mon Oct 14 19:14:04 2019
> New Revision: 1868456
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1868456=rev
> Log:
> Add a note
> 
> Modified:
>httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
> 
> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
> URL: 
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS?rev=1868456=1868455=1868456=diff
> ==
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS Mon Oct 14 19:14:04 2019
> @@ -178,6 +178,11 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
>   trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1867183
>   2.4.x patch: svn merge -c 1867183 ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
>   +1: jim
> +  jailletc36: -0
> +  I don't think that the #pragma black magic is of any help 
> with GCC 
> +  and jim seems to still have problem with clang and 
> comments with //.
> +  See discussion at:
> +  
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/628cc54a1a345cb773d8e1be0639f8e75d2b481cf89232051c83b787@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E


The problem still exists because this is NOT back ported yet. With this back 
port, the problem goes away.

Re: httpd 2.4 and maintainer-mode

[Jim Jagielski]

Yeah, this seems clang specific...

> On Oct 14, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 14/10/2019 à 17:15, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
>> 
>>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 2:49 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I guess that my version of GCC (i.e. 8.3.0) tolerates some c89 deviation in 
>>> .h files included from "outside".
>> So you aren't using Xcode and clang?
> 
> 
> No, just some comand line tools, some scripts, gcc and Geany as an IDE.
> 
> CJ
> 

Re: httpd 2.4 and maintainer-mode

[Marion & Christophe JAILLET]

Le 14/10/2019 à 17:15, Jim Jagielski a écrit :



On Oct 10, 2019, at 2:49 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET 
 wrote:

I guess that my version of GCC (i.e. 8.3.0) tolerates some c89 deviation in .h files 
included from "outside".

So you aren't using Xcode and clang?



No, just some comand line tools, some scripts, gcc and Geany as an IDE.

CJ

Re: Migrate to git?

[Joe Orton]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 03:27:31PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > At the moment I think we have a quality control problem for 2.4.x, yet I 
> > find it hard to justify spending much time on writing test cases because 
> > that stuff is run so rarely.  How many tests proposed in 2.4.x STATUS 
> > have had a full test suite run?  I certainly don't always do it.  But if 
> > we get the tests running all the time automatically it's much easier to 
> > see a return on investment for improving test coverage.
> 
> I see there's already a buildbot job for httpd trunk:
> https://ci.apache.org/waterfall?tag=httpd-trunk
> It seems this build job is configured to run a compile but it does not
> run the test suite? Putting Github/Travis questions aside, an easy way
> to get automated tests going with minimal effort today could be to run
> the existing tests inside httpd's existing buildbot job.
> 
> The Subversion project has been doing this for years.
> See https://subversion.apache.org/buildbot/all

Yes, we have a buildbot which is great, but compared to a GitHub+Travis 
workflow it has two downsides: buildbot is horribly complicated, and it 
only runs *after* commits.  Seeing test results before merging a feature 
to trunk to 2.4.x is a world from waiting for a buildbot run.

(To the first: adding a new build with different ./configure arguments 
is a typically trivial copy with .travis.yml even for somebody who 
doesn't know Travis syntax; I spent an hour reading our bb config once 
and was not confident to try changing it)

Regards, Joe

Re: httpd 2.4 and maintainer-mode

[Jim Jagielski]

> On Oct 10, 2019, at 2:49 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET 
>  wrote:
> 
> I guess that my version of GCC (i.e. 8.3.0) tolerates some c89 deviation in 
> .h files included from "outside".
> 

So you aren't using Xcode and clang?

Re: Migrate to git?

[Daniel Gruno]

On 14/10/2019 09.51, Stefan Sperling wrote:

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 03:27:31PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:

At the moment I think we have a quality control problem for 2.4.x, yet I
find it hard to justify spending much time on writing test cases because
that stuff is run so rarely.  How many tests proposed in 2.4.x STATUS
have had a full test suite run?  I certainly don't always do it.  But if
we get the tests running all the time automatically it's much easier to
see a return on investment for improving test coverage.


I see there's already a buildbot job for httpd trunk:
https://ci.apache.org/waterfall?tag=httpd-trunk
It seems this build job is configured to run a compile but it does not
run the test suite? Putting Github/Travis questions aside, an easy way
to get automated tests going with minimal effort today could be to run
the existing tests inside httpd's existing buildbot job.


Infra is in the midst of setting up a new buildbot 2 service with 
automated builds sort of like what travis does. It's not ready for prime 
time just yet, but within a month or so, we should be able to directly 
configure and trigger dynamic builds/tests via a yaml file in our repo.




The Subversion project has been doing this for years.
See https://subversion.apache.org/buildbot/all

Re: Migrate to git?

[Luca Toscano]

Hi Joe,

Il giorno lun 14 ott 2019 alle ore 16:27 Joe Orton 
ha scritto:
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:17:12PM +0200, Luca Toscano wrote:
> > Il giorno mar 8 ott 2019 alle ore 11:04 Greg Stein 
> > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > Travis CI is possible *today* ... since the svn commits are
> > > replicated over to github, Travis can pick them up and run tests.
> > > Just file an INFRA ticket to enable it.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer, will file a task to infra to enable it :)
>
> This would be awesome, did you file something?  If not I can.
>
> Like others I am no fan of git, but so long as we can get the process
> right, I think using PRs with CI would be a significant benefit for the
> project.  At minimum we could avoid some of the trivial build breakage
> type issues which have delayed 2.4 releases recently.
>
> Even for trunk I would like to be able to develop new features and have
> a full test suite run (e.g. w/pool-debug, with different APR releases,
> etc etc) easily available without having to wait an hour with laptop
> fans giving me a headache.
>
> At the moment I think we have a quality control problem for 2.4.x, yet I
> find it hard to justify spending much time on writing test cases because
> that stuff is run so rarely.  How many tests proposed in 2.4.x STATUS
> have had a full test suite run?  I certainly don't always do it.  But if
> we get the tests running all the time automatically it's much easier to
> see a return on investment for improving test coverage.


I still haven't filed the request to infra, I wanted to fix my docker
images first. I have created
https://github.com/elukey/httpd_integration_testing with support for
Debian and Centos (for the moment), to address two use cases:

1) run of the perl/http2 test suites against a new httpd release
2) run of the perl/http2 test suites for the latest version of trunk or 2.4.x

The docker images seem to work fine, but probably there are some stuff
to change/improve. I tried to document myself about Travis and GH, but
still didn't come up with a clear picture. I hope to have something
ready during the next days, but if you have a better
idea/understanding please go ahead and contact infra :)

Thanks!

Luca

Re: Migrate to git?

[Stefan Sperling]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 03:27:31PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> At the moment I think we have a quality control problem for 2.4.x, yet I 
> find it hard to justify spending much time on writing test cases because 
> that stuff is run so rarely.  How many tests proposed in 2.4.x STATUS 
> have had a full test suite run?  I certainly don't always do it.  But if 
> we get the tests running all the time automatically it's much easier to 
> see a return on investment for improving test coverage.

I see there's already a buildbot job for httpd trunk:
https://ci.apache.org/waterfall?tag=httpd-trunk
It seems this build job is configured to run a compile but it does not
run the test suite? Putting Github/Travis questions aside, an easy way
to get automated tests going with minimal effort today could be to run
the existing tests inside httpd's existing buildbot job.

The Subversion project has been doing this for years.
See https://subversion.apache.org/buildbot/all

Re: Migrate to git?

[Joe Orton]

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:17:12PM +0200, Luca Toscano wrote:
> Il giorno mar 8 ott 2019 alle ore 11:04 Greg Stein 
> ha scritto:
> >
> > Travis CI is possible *today* ... since the svn commits are 
> > replicated over to github, Travis can pick them up and run tests. 
> > Just file an INFRA ticket to enable it.
> >
> 
> Thanks for the pointer, will file a task to infra to enable it :)

This would be awesome, did you file something?  If not I can.

Like others I am no fan of git, but so long as we can get the process 
right, I think using PRs with CI would be a significant benefit for the 
project.  At minimum we could avoid some of the trivial build breakage 
type issues which have delayed 2.4 releases recently.

Even for trunk I would like to be able to develop new features and have 
a full test suite run (e.g. w/pool-debug, with different APR releases, 
etc etc) easily available without having to wait an hour with laptop 
fans giving me a headache.

At the moment I think we have a quality control problem for 2.4.x, yet I 
find it hard to justify spending much time on writing test cases because 
that stuff is run so rarely.  How many tests proposed in 2.4.x STATUS 
have had a full test suite run?  I certainly don't always do it.  But if 
we get the tests running all the time automatically it's much easier to 
see a return on investment for improving test coverage.

Regards, Joe

Re: Migrate to git?

[Yann Ylavic]

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 10:09 PM Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>
> Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have seen an 
> increase in contributions and contributors...
>
> Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/ the 
> foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to have a 
> discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the next 25 years 
> of this project :)

+0.5

I quite like the gh tooling for reviews, ci and merges (provided there
are rules/enforcements about PRs based off the targeted branch, i.e.
no rebase, force-push..), and I think that httpd can gain attractivity
and increase contributions by doing this.

My "concerns" (and missing .5) are about the interraction with our
mailing list(s), though it's probably easy to address (and well done
by other Apache projects).
I wouldn't want to have to browse/track gh to be aware of new PRs,
comments or merges/pulls (including for things I didn't participate to
and thus I'm not subscribed to, yet). Committers need to be aware of
them by the usual way: their mailer (central point for me). I suppose
gh can thread everything smoothly...

So what could be the plan regarding gh activity sent to our lists? New
issues (and their activity) sent to bug@, new PRs (and their activity)
sent to dev@, and merges/pulls to cvs@ (or git@)? How do other Apache
projects manage this?
Finally, what about commenting on gh by replying to emails, can this work?

Regards,
Yann.

Re: Migrate to git?

[Rich Bowen]

Fwiw, Apache Allura has this workflow for svn. And a bunch of other tooling
for github-like functionality around svn.



On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 08:59 Michal Karm  wrote:

> On 10/08/2019 10:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:13 AM Joe Orton  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 04:09:34PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > > Various PMCs have made their default/de-facto SCM git and have
> seen an
> > > increase in contributions and contributors...
> > >
> > > Is this something the httpd project should consider? Especially w/
> the
> > > foundation officially supporting Github, it seems like time to
> have a
> > > discussion about it, especially as we start thinking about the
> next 25
> > > years of this project :)
> >
> > Can we use Travis CI as well?  If so I am +1 on moving to github,
> being
> > able to easily configure a consistent CI across branches and PRs
> will be
> > a major improvement over the status quo.  (I have no idea how
> buildbot
> > works or how to improve it and it's unusuable before commits)
> >
> >
> > Travis CI is possible *today* ... since the svn commits are replicated
> over to
> > github, Travis can pick them up and run tests. Just file an INFRA ticket
> to
> > enable it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> Hi Greg,
>
> That does not cover Joe's note "...and PRs...". Basically having a
> transparent,
> dead simple set of gate smoke tests
> on a handful of major platforms and config flavours/layouts. Linux and
> Windows
> can be used in this capacity for free (as in free beer).
>
> It makes almost no sense unless all committers agree that all code commits
> pass
> through PR gate, i.e.
> no direct commits.
>
> Almost all concerns about git and its presumed complexity can be addressed
> by
> adhering
> to a fixed workflow. GitHub PR workflow is one of the options.
>
> Reading the email thread, I get the vibe that the community would have to
> put out the SVN vs. Git flame first though :)
>
> K.
>
> Michal Karm Babacek
>
> --
> Sent from my Hosaka Ono-Sendai Cyberspace 7
>
>
>