On 5/30/2015 9:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
So I'll let Eric share what he submitted for May on our behalf, but here
is the submitted/accepted/recorded report of Feb '15 - it's awfully high
level, so I'm not sure that updating dev@ regularly with the contents
offers a whole lot of
There's usually just not much to it. Here's what was last submitted:
Report from the Apache HTTP Server project [Eric Covener]
## Description:
The Apache HTTP Server Project develops and maintains an
open-source HTTP server for modern operating systems.
## Activity:
Overall project
On 5/30/2015 1:47 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: Thinking about this more,
what are the things preventing people from an
_easy_ upgrade path configuration-wise? A lot of this conversation
surrounded users and the impact of an upgrade to them. The interface for
the users' to the server is the
On 5/28/2015 2:54 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
Having to expend effort (e.g. re-design/update config and deployment)
to switch/update/upgrade to a new paradigm does not, IMO, mean that it's
not a solution for everyone. Anyone can take the time to implement and
automate the switch. Once that effort has
On 27 May 2015, at 13:54, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
Depends on what
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net
wrote:
P.S.
I'm not a Member or PMC... do I have access to the report that spurred
the conversation?
Adding the context back to the thread...
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
FWIW:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:45 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On May 27, 2015 9:46 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On 05/28/2015 03:54 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
On 28 May 2015, at 14:30, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 28.05.2015 um 21:22 schrieb Rich Bowen:
On 05/27/2015 05:38 PM, olli hauer wrote:
- for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and
changing to
php-fpm was not
More data points and history to ponder, with placeholders to reflect the
passage of time;
1998-06-06 Initial 1.3.0 Release
1999-03-24 Stable 1.3.6 Release (last major MMN bump)
2000
2001
2002-04-05 Initial 2.0.35 Release
2002-09-24 Stable 2.0.42 Release (last major MMN bump)
2003
2004
2005-12-01
Am 28.05.2015 um 21:22 schrieb Rich Bowen:
On 05/27/2015 05:38 PM, olli hauer wrote:
- for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and
changing to
php-fpm was not for everyone a solution.
In my experience, the only reason that php-fpm wasn't a solution for
everyone is that
On 05/27/2015 05:38 PM, olli hauer wrote:
- for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and changing to
php-fpm was not for everyone a solution.
In my experience, the only reason that php-fpm wasn't a solution for
everyone is that it was poorly documented. We could still
On 28 May 2015, at 14:30, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 28.05.2015 um 21:22 schrieb Rich Bowen:
On 05/27/2015 05:38 PM, olli hauer wrote:
- for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and
changing to
php-fpm was not for everyone a solution.
In my
On May 27, 2015 9:46 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts
Mageia:
Mageia 3 released with Apahe 2.4 in April 2013
Apache 2.2 (via Mageia 2) reached EOL in November 2013
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Ubuntu - 14.04 LTS, and Debian 8 (Jessie) got the message, a year ago
April.
RHEL / CentOS 7 aren't even a year old yet.
OpenSUSE 13.1 beat them all to the punch, back in Nov of '13. So that's
the oldest
On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 22:42 +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote:
Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a role in
motivating people to migrate away from 2.2.
I've just looked at your internals page (which seems to me
an excellent piece of work), and it tends to support the gut
On 28 May 2015, at 4:46 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
My thoughts are that we use mod_h2 as a guide to how to
better implement things in trunk, but also allow for
mod_h2 to also work w/ 2.4 as well... So there will be
a 2.4 version of mod_h2 as well as a more significant
merging
That makes most sense to me as well.
Besides all the non-optimal things I discuss in the internals paper, the
numbers - of my very limited measurements - show that mod_h2 is slightly less
performant than plain httpd *if you only have a single request/connection at a
time*. If you have 2
please dont sent other mail
Arash.S
Sent from
〰〰
On May 28, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
My thoughts are that we use mod_h2 as a guide to how to
better implement things in trunk, but also allow for
mod_h2 to also work w/ 2.4 as well... So there will be
My thoughts are that we use mod_h2 as a guide to how to
better implement things in trunk, but also allow for
mod_h2 to also work w/ 2.4 as well... So there will be
a 2.4 version of mod_h2 as well as a more significant
merging of mod_h2/trunk/2.6/3.0.
On May 28, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Nick Kew
On May 28, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 28 May 2015, at 4:46 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
My thoughts are that we use mod_h2 as a guide to how to
better implement things in trunk, but also allow for
mod_h2 to also work w/ 2.4 as well... So
I propose we - where possible - add the missing bits that mod_h2 has to
hack around, and then propose those changes for backport to v2.4 in the
normal way.
Given the amount of inertia minor versions of httpd have, it would be
ideal if mod_h2 could be used in the httpd v2.4 timeframe, rather
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:55 AM Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
I think it's
No issue for me.
How many time would bug/security fixes would still be backported (from
when we decide so)?
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
No need to go off...
Did I?
2.2 has been out for almost 10 years.
Irrelevant to the discussion...
2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time.
Specifically, http://svn.apache.org/r1243503
Generally unusable, the
one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot tech
that use 2.4
basically, any time there is a how-to-FOO somewhere on the www that uses
nginx for the web server component, there needs to be a better how-to-FOO
that uses httpd 2.4 ;) (I don't even think 2.2
Your thought seems to be that we EOL 2.2 when the number of
2.2 deployments the number of 2.4 ones. My thought is that
we EOL 2.2 in order to *hasten* that event, just like just
about every other open-source and non-open source software
project out there.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen?
Nope, we'll let the internet speak for itself -
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/ws-apache/2
We are nowhere near close enough to
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts
On 27 May 2015 at 17:42, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts
The 2.2.x branch is still of interest to the product I work on.
So I am willing to devote effort towards its maintenance.
Thanks,
Mike
On 5/27/2015 7:46 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
What we need to know for the 2.2.x branch is basically this:
Developers (committers or not):
[Y] I am
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
People here
Focus your energy on anything you like.
Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :)
My point is that if we EOL 2.2 (with some definition of EOL)
then people on 2.2 (or earlier) will have some *real* incentive
to move off of 2.2 towards 2.4 (or later)...
Basically, we need something to kick people off 2.2
and get them to 2.4. By stating that 2.2 will ONLY get
security related
Developers (committers or not):
[Y] I am willing to help resolve security issues in the 2.2.x branch.
[N] I am willing to help address non-security issues in the 2.2.x branch.
PMC members:
[Y] I am willing to test and vote on proposed 2.2.x releases.
Only security ones.
Maybe
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
My point is that if we EOL 2.2 (with some definition of EOL)
then people on 2.2 (or earlier) will have some *real* incentive
to move off of 2.2 towards 2.4 (or later)...
Basically, we need something to kick people off
No need to go off... 2.2 has been out for almost 10 years.
2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time. I'm simply
*suggesting* (no BDFL posturing Mr. Rowe) that after 10
years, maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
2.4's time is here, if not already past. I'm simply trying
to encourage
Now that even stability-loving Debian is providing 2.4.x with full security
support, moving on from 2.2 seems to make sense.
--
Tim Bannister – is...@c8h10n4o2.org.uk
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
crazy and not-so-crazy ideas will speed the movement to 2.4 irrespective
of distro schedules (not sure how much :) )
Here one: Since containers are the new hotness, how about being
more Docker/Rocket/whatever
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Focus your energy on anything you like.
Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :)
Please assume not :) ASF projects should still remain
scratch-your-own-itch(es).
Your message certainly had an
crazy and not-so-crazy ideas will speed the movement to 2.4 irrespective of
distro schedules (not sure how much :) )
Here one: Since containers are the new hotness, how about being
more Docker/Rocket/whatever friendly (whatever that means)? :)
Hope making this suggestion is OK and that
On 27 May 2015, at 18:26, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot tech
that use 2.4
basically, any time there is a how-to-FOO somewhere on the www that uses
nginx for the web server component, there needs to be a
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Tim Bannister is...@c8h10n4o2.org.uk
wrote:
On 27 May 2015, at 18:26, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot
tech that use 2.4
basically, any time there is a how-to-FOO somewhere on
Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a role in
motivating people to migrate away from 2.2.
I have not looked into having it work on 2.2 and no interest in doing so. If we
get the ALPN support into 2.4.13, mod_h2 can be just dropped in to such a
server. And distros
Here at AL quite a lot sticking with 2.2 because third-party modules which are
not available with 2.4. Like mod-perl etc.
Op 27 mei 2015 om 22:42 heeft Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
het volgende geschreven:
Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a
On 2015-05-27 17:34, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen?
Nope, we'll let the internet speak for itself -
On 28/05/2015 07:38, olli hauer wrote:
- for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and changing to
php-fpm was not for everyone a solution.
huh?
I personally since dawn of the httpd/php love have always only ever used
mod_php and at no time did I have a a non usable
On 28/05/2015 03:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
No need to go off... 2.2 has been out for almost 10 years.
2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time. I'm simply
*suggesting* (no BDFL posturing Mr. Rowe) that after 10
years, maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
2.4's time is here,
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On 28/05/2015 03:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[...] maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
2.4's time is here, if not already past. I'm simply trying
to encourage us to work on the future and not focus on
the
51 matches
Mail list logo
