Re: mpm-event-optimization

2012-07-18 Thread Jim Jagielski
Sometimes creating, or at least vocalizing, a plan is enough to
encourage people to kick-up the activity levels to push out a
release that has more than what's been expected ;)

On Jul 16, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:

 On Monday 16 July 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 On Jul 13, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
 On Thursday 12 July 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 To be clear, yes, the intent was to ensure that all patches
 from trunk got into 2.4 before we re-merge. My expectation is
 that the event optimizations will eventually find their way
 into 2.4.x (and not be part of 2.6.x) and so getting them back
 into trunk allows people to work them. Except for main
 branches, most side-branches just don't get worked.
 
 So my plan is:
 1. We push all trunk event improvements into 2.4.x
 2. We release 2.4.3
 3. We re-merge the event optims back to trunk.
 
 FWIW, I would prefer not to delay 2.4.3 for that.
 
 Delay 2.4.3 for what?
 
 Waiting for all mpm_event fixes to be reviewed. But with the current 
 increase of activity, maybe there won't be any delay.
 



Re: mpm-event-optimization

2012-07-16 Thread Jim Jagielski

On Jul 13, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:

 On Thursday 12 July 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 To be clear, yes, the intent was to ensure that all patches
 from trunk got into 2.4 before we re-merge. My expectation is
 that the event optimizations will eventually find their way
 into 2.4.x (and not be part of 2.6.x) and so getting them back
 into trunk allows people to work them. Except for main
 branches, most side-branches just don't get worked.
 
 So my plan is:
 
  1. We push all trunk event improvements into 2.4.x
  2. We release 2.4.3
  3. We re-merge the event optims back to trunk.
 
 FWIW, I would prefer not to delay 2.4.3 for that.
 

Delay 2.4.3 for what?


Re: mpm-event-optimization

2012-07-16 Thread Stefan Fritsch
On Monday 16 July 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 On Jul 13, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
  On Thursday 12 July 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
  To be clear, yes, the intent was to ensure that all patches
  from trunk got into 2.4 before we re-merge. My expectation is
  that the event optimizations will eventually find their way
  into 2.4.x (and not be part of 2.6.x) and so getting them back
  into trunk allows people to work them. Except for main
  branches, most side-branches just don't get worked.
  
  So my plan is:
   1. We push all trunk event improvements into 2.4.x
   2. We release 2.4.3
   3. We re-merge the event optims back to trunk.
  
  FWIW, I would prefer not to delay 2.4.3 for that.
 
 Delay 2.4.3 for what?

Waiting for all mpm_event fixes to be reviewed. But with the current 
increase of activity, maybe there won't be any delay.


Re: mpm-event-optimization

2012-07-13 Thread Stefan Fritsch
On Thursday 12 July 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 To be clear, yes, the intent was to ensure that all patches
 from trunk got into 2.4 before we re-merge. My expectation is
 that the event optimizations will eventually find their way
 into 2.4.x (and not be part of 2.6.x) and so getting them back
 into trunk allows people to work them. Except for main
 branches, most side-branches just don't get worked.
 
 So my plan is:
 
   1. We push all trunk event improvements into 2.4.x
   2. We release 2.4.3
   3. We re-merge the event optims back to trunk.

FWIW, I would prefer not to delay 2.4.3 for that.


Re: mpm-event-optimization

2012-07-12 Thread Jim Jagielski

On Jul 11, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:

 On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
 About 4 months ago we moved Paul's event optimization stuff
 to its own branch, and since then no work as been done on it
 at all...
 
 I'd like for us to consider putting it back into trunk, so we
 can work out the bugs and issues and getting it up to snuff.
 This is in conjunction with my effort to reboot 'simple' (which
 I've been working on externally)...
 
 But there have been quite a few bugfixes in trunk's mpm event since the 
 branch. We should get these into 2.4 first before we do radical changes in 
 trunk. There are also the patches from 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201203.mbox/%3C201203022118.08839.sf%40sfritsch.de%3E
  but I didn't have enough cycles to finish and commit those, yet.
 
 Of course, this should not prevent anyone from committing improvements to the 
 mpm-event-optimization branch.
 

To be clear, yes, the intent was to ensure that all patches
from trunk got into 2.4 before we re-merge. My expectation is
that the event optimizations will eventually find their way
into 2.4.x (and not be part of 2.6.x) and so getting them back
into trunk allows people to work them. Except for main
branches, most side-branches just don't get worked.

So my plan is:

  1. We push all trunk event improvements into 2.4.x
  2. We release 2.4.3
  3. We re-merge the event optims back to trunk.

mpm-event-optimization

2012-07-11 Thread Jim Jagielski
About 4 months ago we moved Paul's event optimization stuff
to its own branch, and since then no work as been done on it
at all...

I'd like for us to consider putting it back into trunk, so we
can work out the bugs and issues and getting it up to snuff.
This is in conjunction with my effort to reboot 'simple' (which
I've been working on externally)...



Re: mpm-event-optimization

2012-07-11 Thread Stefan Fritsch

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:

About 4 months ago we moved Paul's event optimization stuff
to its own branch, and since then no work as been done on it
at all...

I'd like for us to consider putting it back into trunk, so we
can work out the bugs and issues and getting it up to snuff.
This is in conjunction with my effort to reboot 'simple' (which
I've been working on externally)...


But there have been quite a few bugfixes in trunk's mpm event since the 
branch. We should get these into 2.4 first before we do radical changes in 
trunk. There are also the patches from 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201203.mbox/%3C201203022118.08839.sf%40sfritsch.de%3E 
but I didn't have enough cycles to finish and commit those, yet.


Of course, this should not prevent anyone from committing improvements to 
the mpm-event-optimization branch.