On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Alex Bligh a...@alex.org.uk wrote:
I am compiling a module I have written on Ubuntu Precise. The module will
always
be run on apache-mpm-prefork (i.e. the non-threaded mpm), but the module
itself
uses threads (apr_thread*). Should I be compiling against
On 10.07.2013 07:53, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Color me confused. Where SSLv2 alone is dropped from the stock OpenSSL
build, 2.2.25 would not compile. The www.a.o/dist/httpd/Announcement
file calls out this patch as a workaround, which I will publish once
I have sorted why the binary win32
Fellow PMC folk...
I think everyone on this list can agree that the pace of releases has
slowed to a crawl; we are 6+ mos between releases of our active/stable
2.4 series, which has little if any adoption, and are equally lethargic
about the actually stable-and-adopted 2.2 releases. This is a
Fellow httpd devs,
A major problem which has occurred repeatedly, since the rapid pace of
release candidates in the 2.0 series, is that the RM baton has been
announced and dropped on the ground for weeks, if not many months. The
prime directive of open source at the ASF is to release early and
On 10 Jul 2013, at 8:41 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
A major problem which has occurred repeatedly, since the rapid pace of
release candidates in the 2.0 series, is that the RM baton has been
announced and dropped on the ground for weeks, if not many months. The
prime
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 10:11:58 +0200
Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 10 Jul 2013, at 8:41 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
While we all get busy, and derailed by nice-to-have additions, the
activity 10:59 and 11:01 EDT Tuesday is a prime example of where the
If you frame this as a fast vote for adoption, and correct the text
in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/Announcement2.2.txt
as well as the .html version, I'll post that in my morning (which is
still stuck on PDT from my travels).
Otherwise, I'll post the existing text, which seems
On 10.07.2013 10:32, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
If you frame this as a fast vote for adoption, and correct the text
in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/Announcement2.2.txt
as well as the .html version, I'll post that in my morning (which is
still stuck on PDT from my travels).
+1 on the patch for backporting.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Original Message-
From: Kaspar Brand [mailto: Sent: Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2013 10:45
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: William A. Rowe Jr.
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1500108 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x:
CHANGES STATUS
On 10.07.2013 10:32, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
If you frame this as a fast vote for adoption, and correct the text
in https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/Announcement2.2.txt
as well as the .html version, I'll post that in my morning (which is
still stuck on PDT from my travels).
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:53:03AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Do you have time to test with this patch on top of 2.4.x and report back?
http://people.apache.org/~sf/open_htaccess_hook.patch
Hi,
I've tried this, adjusted mpm-itk, and it seems to work. Why do I need to
return AP_DECLINED and
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 03:24 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Because the project is incapable of releasing more than two minor
subversions, per year, at present.
on holiday with a dog slow 3G vpn tonight, so I'll be brief (and wont
see any replies until I return on Sunday...)
I have never
On 07/10/2013 07:22 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote:
On 07/09/2013 07:17 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 09.07.2013 17:47, Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:41:04AM -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
I'm only concerned with someone who was getting by with LDAPReferrals
OFF because the default gave their SDK
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:41 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Fellow httpd devs,
A major problem which has occurred repeatedly, since the rapid pace of
release candidates in the 2.0 series, is that the RM baton has been
announced and dropped on the ground for weeks, if not
I think the problem with no-one picking up the baton on a stalled
release is just a different angle on the same participation problem --
what little resource there is gobbled up by non-RM activities (some of
it self imposed overhead as you outlined in the other thread).
So my concern with the
attached patch changes LDAPReferrals to tri-state logic.
- on - default. Calls apr_ldap_set_option to set referrals on.
- off - Calls apr_ldap_set_option to turn referrals off.
- unset - Does not call apr_ldap_set_option at all.
+1, will let it stew here first and commit soon. PR54358
-Original Message-
From: Graham Leggett [mailto:]
Sent: Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2013 10:12
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] The 'RM' Baton
On 10 Jul 2013, at 8:41 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Proposed: An RM intent-to-tag announcement is valid
A bit puzzling with words.
In 2.0.65 announce:
...legacy release 2.2 ...
In 2.2.25 announce:
...This 2.2 maintenance release ...
and
.. a security and bug fix maintenance release ..
I prefer the word legacy only, like was used with 2.0.
Steffen
According to STATUS:
2.4.5 : In development. Jim proposes a release ~July 4, 2013
and offers to RM.
2.4.4 : Tagged on February 18, 2013. Released Feb 25, 2013
2.4.3 : Tagged on August 17, 2012. Released Aug 18, 2012
2.4.2 : Tagged on April 5, 2012. Released
-1.
On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:41 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Fellow httpd devs,
A major problem which has occurred repeatedly, since the rapid pace of
release candidates in the 2.0 series, is that the RM baton has been
announced and dropped on the ground for weeks, if
Considering that I've been the only RM for 2.4.x, I can't help but
assume that Bill is referring to me.
As mentioned by others, by indicating a desire to TR, it energizes
people to catch up on STATUS, place their votes and propose backports.
So it is *expected* that at a time when things should
On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So, are we ready for 2.4.5??
Let's look thru STATUS with an eye on things that really should
be in 2.4.5 or, at least, people could review:
* mod_auth_basic: Add a generic mechanism to fake basic authentication
using
Hello All,
I know this may be a newbie question, however when i run the following
command, all of my apache processes are listed with -k start. I have an
example listed below:
ps -aux | grep apache | grep -v grep
apache 22397 3.5 0.3 360224 28476 ?S09:39 0:08
/usr/sbin/httpd
Am 10.07.2013 16:52, schrieb peter_bateman:
I know this may be a newbie question, however when i run the following
command, all of my apache processes are listed with -k start. I have an
example listed below:
ps -aux | grep apache | grep -v grep
apache 22397 3.5 0.3 360224 28476 ?
I just haven't seen the apache processes listing with the -k start option on
any of my other servers, and wasn't sure why it was being displayed here...
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-http-server.18135.x6.nabble.com/apache-process-ps-aux-tp5007013p5007015.html
Sent from the
Thank you for the information, I really appreciate your reply. This was very
helpful.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-http-server.18135.x6.nabble.com/apache-process-ps-aux-tp5007013p5007016.html
Sent from the Apache HTTP Server - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:14:16 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
According to STATUS:
2.4.5 : In development. Jim proposes a release ~July 4, 2013
and offers to RM.
2.4.4 : Tagged on February 18, 2013. Released Feb 25, 2013
2.4.3 : Tagged on August
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:25 AM, peter_bateman jrweisb...@gmail.com wrote:
I just haven't seen the apache processes listing with the -k start option on
any of my other servers, and wasn't sure why it was being displayed here...
If you've been using a platform where the ps command doesn't list
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:10:13 +0200
Steffen i...@apachelounge.com wrote:
A bit puzzling with words.
In 2.0.65 announce:
...legacy release 2.2 ...
In 2.2.25 announce:
...This 2.2 maintenance release ...
and
.. a security and bug fix maintenance release ..
I prefer the word
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:02:18PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 09 July 2013, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:00:19AM +0200, Jan Kaluza wrote:
I agree 20 bytes could be too much. I have changed my patch to
have only 10 bytes long root. I will check the Daniel's
On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
So my proposal to be presented shortly as a vote would be to abandon the
trunk into a sandbox to be mined for good changes, once 30 days after a
vote is concluded without a release, and to revert the 2.4.x trunk to
On 10.07.2013 13:14, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 08:53:03AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Do you have time to test with this patch on top of 2.4.x and report back?
http://people.apache.org/~sf/open_htaccess_hook.patch
Hi,
I've tried this, adjusted mpm-itk, and it
On 10/07/2013 19:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
So my proposal to be presented shortly as a vote would be to abandon the
trunk into a sandbox to be mined for good changes, once 30 days after a
vote is concluded
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:43:58 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
So my proposal to be presented shortly as a vote would be to
abandon the trunk into a sandbox to be mined for good changes, once
30 days
On 7/10/2013 7:13 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
So my concern with the proposal -- are there really wiling/able RM's
waiting in the wings in these periods? If they're there -- are they
afraid of stepping on an RM's toes, or of drawing a line in the sane
for the half-approved backports?
(I have
On Jul 10, 2013, at 11:54 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
So reverting branches/2.4.x/ to trunk is my first suggestion to make
this easier, and it seems that the list would like to make things a
bit easier on committers and contributors. Reverting to CTR on 2.4.x
would
As someone who's done most of the 2.4 releases, my goal has
always been to ensure that whatever we release has as much
trunk-goodness as possible. The more deviation there is between
trunk and 2.4 the worse it is, imo, because it makes 2.4 less
appealing.
We are now currently using trunk pretty
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:18:06 +1000
Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
on holiday with a dog slow 3G vpn tonight, so I'll be brief (and wont
see any replies until I return on Sunday...)
I have never agreed with any release often principle, a project that
releases often (more than a
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:22:06 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Considering that I've been the only RM for 2.4.x, I can't help but
assume that Bill is referring to me.
Please be aware that I'm speaking of all recent RMs (the few of us,
as Eric hinted, which includes myself) and
On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
What does the question of how long can a prospective RM hold that baton
before it becomes an excessive period of time (being the act of one
committer, whether that is you or I or another, which prevents others
from
Bill, all you had to say was We really need to get 2.4.5 out. That's
it. I agree. In fact I've been pushing for it quite a bit, and
for a longer time, including those long periods when you've been
completely off the grid.
I'll be TRing 2.4.5 tomorrow (thur July 10th).
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:18:06 +1000
Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
on holiday with a dog slow 3G vpn tonight, so I'll be brief (and
wont see any replies until I return on Sunday...)
I have never agreed with any release
On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Note that the release windows we are discussing have been far longer
than a month (or I would not have bothered to bring this up), fair?
For example, 2.0.65 was lingering almost a year. 2.4.5 is now into
its second
Pulling this out as a proposal:
I propose that we track all backports in 2.4 STATUS as we currently
do. Each backport is time-tagged and we operate under a lazy
consensus. Assuming no -1 votes within 96 hours, the backport
can be applied to 2.4.x. If the backport gets 3 +1 votes sooner
than that,
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:54:00 +0200
Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
In practice, 2.2 is the stable release, from what users experience.
This stems in part from the 5 years between 2.2 and 2.4. 2.4 simply
takes some time to
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
In any case, I *am* concerned that w seem to have quite a bit of
difficulty in getting 3 +1s a lot of the time and that the
backport process from trunk to 2.4 is becoming more and more
painful.
Am 10.07.2013 20:18, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
Precisely. With mod_perl, they can pick it up in their next cycle. It
has been a very long time since 2.4.0, certainly within some of the
bleed releases, but without mod_perl nobody would make the jump.
It isn't inconcievable that 2.4.x is
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
I don't like all that much having to duplicate the “official” hook
(in particular the ap_make_full_path() call), but I guess it's
better than what used to be there, and it's only two lines.
Yes, that's the price to pay for the more
On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:18 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
I found these comments from STATUS rather ironic;
-0.5: sf: I would prefer if this sat in trunk for a few months first
to receive more testing.
+0.5: jj: I would prefer if this sat in trunk for a few
All good points... IMO, if people consider themselves a
2.4 developer, their *primary* repo to be working on MUST
be trunk... all their work and *testing* must be on that
codebase. Yes, trunk exists for sandbox type of work,
but it also is the ONLY way that code gets backported to
2.4, so at
WRT 2.5/2.6, I very much hope that it will not take as long as the
2.2-2.4 cycle. I am pretty sure that we cannot reasonably support
SPDY/HTTPbis/HTTP2.0 in 2.4, so we will need a 2.6 in the forseeable
future.
I think as big/disruptive as that will be, and as unlikely as a
meaningful release
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:20:22 +0200
Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
What I am asking, is whether that trunk is a sandbox to hack in, or
whether is is approaching a releasable state? I'm asking, whether
trunk is a worthwhile
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:03:53 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Pulling this out as a proposal:
I propose that we track all backports in 2.4 STATUS as we currently
do. Each backport is time-tagged and we operate under a lazy
consensus. Assuming no -1 votes within 96 hours, the
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Pulling this out as a proposal:
I propose that we track all backports in 2.4 STATUS as we currently
do. Each backport is time-tagged and we operate under a lazy
consensus. Assuming no -1 votes within 96 hours, the
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Wednesday 10 July 2013, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
I don't like all that much having to duplicate the “official” hook
(in particular the ap_make_full_path() call), but I guess it's
better than what used to be
If I count right, 80% or more of the fixes potentially in 2.4.next are
already there (I didn't count mod_lua.) That doesn't seem so bad.
FWIW, I had a flurry of trivial fixes in trunk that I didn't want to
derail/delay 2.4.5 with, which inflates the remaining 20% a bit.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:59:46 -0400
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Note that the release windows we are discussing have been far longer
than a month (or I would not have bothered to bring this up), fair?
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
If I count right, 80% or more of the fixes potentially in 2.4.next are
already there (I didn't count mod_lua.) That doesn't seem so bad.
FWIW, I had a flurry of trivial fixes in trunk that I didn't want to
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, peter_bateman jrweisb...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello All,
I know this may be a newbie question,
Newbie or not, use the users@httpd mailing list for this sort of thing ;)
however when i run the following
command, all of my apache processes are listed with -k
On 10 Jul 2013, at 8:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Fellow PMC folk...
I think everyone on this list can agree that the pace of releases has
slowed to a crawl; we are 6+ mos between releases of our active/stable
2.4 series, which has little if any adoption, and are
On 10 Jul 2013, at 9:09 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Right, but let's just take a look at our official STATUS and how you
have treated it in the past year, and how that differed from 2.2...
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:30:30 +0200
Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Can you explain the current rush to release trunk a mere 18 months
after we've released v2.4? I don't see the urgency at all.
Graham, thank you for reiterating my point :) /trunk/ is simply
premature and an
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:38:00 +0200
Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 10 Jul 2013, at 9:09 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
At what times was the tree 'open to tag' by any RM? You effectively
placed a block on potential release activity and held STATUS hostage
I am compiling a module I have written on Ubuntu Precise. The module will always
be run on apache-mpm-prefork (i.e. the non-threaded mpm), but the module itself
uses threads (apr_thread*). Should I be compiling against apache2-threaded-dev
or apache2-prefork-dev? Or doesn't it matter?
--
Alex
My mistake...first time on this forum. Thanks for the advice.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-http-server.18135.x6.nabble.com/apache-process-ps-aux-tp5007013p5007063.html
Sent from the Apache HTTP Server - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 10.07.2013 15:22, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Considering that I've been the only RM for 2.4.x, I can't help but
assume that Bill is referring to me.
As mentioned by others, by indicating a desire to TR, it energizes
people to catch up on STATUS, place their votes and propose backports.
So it is
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
I was also thinking about learning how to release - but the lack of proper
documentation for the whole process holds me back; I remember how Graham
fell from one trap into another when he did his 1st APR release, and I dont
Hi --
I thought I'd toss out a patch I've been working on lately; it's been
a long time since I committed directly, so if some of the regulars
wouldn't mind giving some feedback first, I'd appreciate it.
The idea is to introduce a non-default UseListenScheme On setting
which uses the scheme
69 matches
Mail list logo
