Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

> On Jan 3, 2017, at 8:04 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 03/01/2017 23:11, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds >> for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, >> but maybe also providing easily

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 03/01/2017 23:11, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds > for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, > but maybe also providing easily

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On 03/01/2017 23:11, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds > for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, > but maybe also providing easily consumable other formats when we > do a release, as a "service" to the community might

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Jan 3, 2017 07:11, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, but maybe also providing easily consumable other formats when we do a release, as a "service" to the

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, but maybe also providing easily consumable other formats when we do a release, as a "service" to the community might make a lot of sense.

Re: Post 2.4.25

On 31 Dec 2016, at 00:09, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > * the longer 2.6/3.0 takes the more half-baked/half-finished stuff > accumulates > that needs to be fixed before a release. > > But I don't have any ideas how to resolve this. Did you see my "A new release process?" thread?

Re: Post 2.4.25

On Saturday, 24 December 2016 08:29:35 CET Rich Bowen wrote: > From my perspective, watching Nginx gain traction through superior > marketing, and channeling Dilbert's Pointy Haired Boss in assuming that > everything which I have never done must be simple, I, for one, would > like to see us

RE: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

project? Rick Houser Web Administration > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Ruggeri [mailto:drugg...@primary.net] > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 10:12 > To: dev@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25] > > On 12/28/2016 6:40

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On 12/28/2016 6:40 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr > > wrote: > > Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions > from vendors, not from people picking up our sources. > Yes - some

Re: Post 2.4.25

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Dec 28, 2016, at 6:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> Because fixing r->uri is such a priority, trust that I'll be voting every >> 2.6 candidate a -1 until it exists. I don't know why the

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > It wasn't the paste that was the problem, but the inability > of other email clients to determine from your email what > parts/sections are quoted from *previous* emails. Yann pointed me in the right direction, I believe

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

> On Dec 28, 2016, at 7:40 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions > from vendors, not from people picking up our sources. > Yes - some integrate

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

It wasn't the paste that was the problem, but the inability of other email clients to determine from your email what parts/sections are quoted from *previous* emails. > On Dec 28, 2016, at 5:49 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Talk to Google and the OpenOffice

Re: Post 2.4.25

> On Dec 28, 2016, at 6:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > > Because fixing r->uri is such a priority, trust that I'll be voting every 2.6 > candidate a -1 until it exists. I don't know why the original httpd founders > are so hung up on version number conservation,

Re: Post 2.4.25

Am 29.12.2016 um 07:08 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: (Again, it's gmail, /shrug. I can attempt to undecorate but doubt I'm moving to a local client/mail store again. If anyone has good gmail formatting tips for their default settings, I'd love a pointer.) yes, setup thunderbird and gmail with

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

> Am 29.12.2016 um 01:40 schrieb Yehuda Katz : > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions > from vendors, not from people picking up our sources. > Yes - some integrate

On the subject of r->uri [was: Post 2.4.25]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > [Bill, you definitely should do something with your email client, e.g. > using plain text only, replying to your messages breaks indentation > level (like the number of '>' preceding/according to the initial > message)].

Re: Post 2.4.25

[Bill, you definitely should do something with your email client, e.g. using plain text only, replying to your messages breaks indentation level (like the number of '>' preceding/according to the initial message)]. On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:28 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions > from vendors, not from people picking up our sources. > Yes - some integrate directly from source, and others > use a non-OS distribution. > I think a

Re: Post 2.4.25

On Dec 24, 2016 08:32, "Eric Covener" wrote: > I'm not saying we don't do one so we can do the other; I'm > saying we do both, at the same time, in parallel. I still > don't understand why that concept is such an anathema to some > people. I also worry about our ability to

Re: Post 2.4.25

On Dec 24, 2016 07:57, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > On Dec 24, 2016, at 8:29 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > On 12/23/2016 03:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Personally, I don't think that backporting stuff to >> 2.4 prevents or disallows development on 2.6/3.0. In

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Dec 28, 2016 10:34, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: Specific Revision Of all Most Recent Of m.m Of all Apache/1.3.x 391898 3.33% 1.3.42 42392 10.82% 0.36% Apache/2.0.x 551117 4.68% 2.0.64 36944 6.70% 0.31% Apache/2.2.x 7129391 60.49% 2.2.31 1332448 18.78% 11.31% Apache/2.4.x

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

Hi Jim, Talk to Google and the OpenOffice Team, that was a paste from OpenOffice Calc. I'll be happy to start summarizing as a shared Google sheet. Cheers, Bill On Dec 28, 2016 14:22, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > Bill, I don't know if it's just my Email client or not (doesn't

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

Bill, I don't know if it's just my Email client or not (doesn't look like it) but could you fix your Email client? It's impossible to reply and have the quoted parts parsed out correctly. I think it's to do w/ your messages being RTF or something. Thx! Included is an example of how a Reply

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:46:51 -0600): >On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > >> Do not underestimate the influence of control panels. On all my Centos >> servers I am running Directadmin. DA always offers to upgrade to

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > cPanel too... They are moving to EA4 which is Apache 2.4. > If not moved yet, that example wouldn't be helpful, it reinforces my point four years later. But EA itself seems to track pretty closely to the most

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 27 Dec 2016 23:35:50 > -0600): > >But the vast majority of httpd, nginx, and yes - even IIS > >users are all running what they were handed from their > >OS distribution.

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

cPanel too... They are moving to EA4 which is Apache 2.4. So the idea that supplemental (ie: 2.4.x->2.4.y) patches don't have the reach or range of larger ones (2.4.x->2.6/3.0) isn't quite accurate. IMO, people who are comfortable with "whatever the OS provides" aren't the ones we are talking

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 27 Dec 2016 23:35:50 -0600): >But the vast majority of httpd, nginx, and yes - even IIS >users are all running what they were handed from their >OS distribution. Do not underestimate the influence of control panels. On all my Centos servers I am

The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > As I have also stated, my personal belief is that > 2.4 is finally reaching some traction, and if we > "turn off" development/enhancement of 2.4, we will > stop the uptake of 2.4 in its track. This is where I think we

Re: Post 2.4.25

> On 24 Dec 2016, at 16:32, Eric Covener wrote: > >> I'm not saying we don't do one so we can do the other; I'm >> saying we do both, at the same time, in parallel. I still >> don't understand why that concept is such an anathema to some >> people. > > I also worry about our

Re: Post 2.4.25

> I'm not saying we don't do one so we can do the other; I'm > saying we do both, at the same time, in parallel. I still > don't understand why that concept is such an anathema to some > people. I also worry about our ability to deliver a 3.0 with enough re-architecture for us and and function

Re: Post 2.4.25

On Dec 24, 2016 10:57, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: Yeah, right now the way we are "doing marketing" is by continually adding features and enhancements to 2.4... It is what keeps 2.4 relevant and is what either keeps current httpd users using httpd or maybe help those on the fence

Re: Post 2.4.25

> On Dec 24, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 3:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> Next step is to actually end enhancements alltogether >> against 2.4 (we've done that some time ago, security >> issues

Re: Post 2.4.25

> On Dec 24, 2016, at 8:29 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > > On 12/23/2016 03:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Personally, I don't think that backporting stuff to >> 2.4 prevents or disallows development on 2.6/3.0. In >> fact, I think it helps. We can easily do both... >> after

Re: Post 2.4.25

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 3:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Next step is to actually end enhancements alltogether > against 2.4 (we've done that some time ago, security > issues notwithstanding, on 2.2), and push all of the > enhancement effort towards 3.0 (2.5-dev). Of

Re: Post 2.4.25

On 12/23/2016 03:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Personally, I don't think that backporting stuff to > 2.4 prevents or disallows development on 2.6/3.0. In > fact, I think it helps. We can easily do both... > after all, we are still "working" on 2.2. > > As I have also stated, my personal belief

Re: Post 2.4.25

On Dec 23, 2016 9:58 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: Well, since I am actively working on trunk, I am obviously interested in seeing continued work being done on it and the work being usable to our users in a timely fashion. Since backports to 2.2 have not affected work on 2.4 or

Re: Post 2.4.25

> On Dec 23, 2016, at 5:50 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Just a couple quick thoughts... > > On Dec 23, 2016 2:55 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > > . We need to keep > 2.4 viable and worthwhile > > So long as we fix the bugs, it is. > Personally,

Re: Post 2.4.25

Well, since I am actively working on trunk, I am obviously interested in seeing continued work being done on it and the work being usable to our users in a timely fashion. Since backports to 2.2 have not affected work on 2.4 or trunk, it is obvious as well that any backport efforts for 2.4

Re: Post 2.4.25

Personally, I don't think that backporting stuff to 2.4 prevents or disallows development on 2.6/3.0. In fact, I think it helps. We can easily do both... after all, we are still "working" on 2.2. As I have also stated, my personal belief is that 2.4 is finally reaching some traction, and if we

Re: Post 2.4.25

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > For me, it would be moving as much as we can from > trunk to 2.4 -1. To echo your frequent use of media to emphasize the point, with a song nearly as old as us; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCyC1dZiN8 Next step is

Post 2.4.25

Now that we have 2.4.25 done, I'd like us to take the next few weeks thinking about how we'd like to see the next release shape up. For me, it would be moving as much as we can from trunk to 2.4, again, to enable current users to leverage and enjoy the goodness which is currently "stuck" in