+1 for removing from 2.4.x. Regards
Rüdiger From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Mittwoch, 23. März 2016 02:16 To: httpd Subject: Re: fate of mod_lbmethod_rr (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.19 as GA) On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:55 PM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Can anyone get mod_lbmethod_rr.c to build? That's funny actually. The very first version README.cmake in trunk says that mod_lbmethod_rr.c doesn't build on Windows When I added the .dsp, it certainly did build. --enable-mods=all should be triggering the build of those sources. I think this illustrates that we have played fast and loose with something that 1. is a public API, 2. not experimental, and 3. was illustrated with an example that has been frequently broken by Major ABI changes. If devs want to promote an API and then continuously break ABI on trunk, I'm way beyond arguing with such individuals. Just a few choice examples which had necessitated major MMN bumps that did not receive one... http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1560081 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1477649 (no bitwise-alignment assurance) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1436919 (no bitwise-alignment assurance) However, this module appears to have been broken prior to 2.4.1 GA with this at least this commit... http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1209958 ... which tells me it is simply an abandoned example. I propose we remove it from 2.4.x branch and trunk, rather than pretending we have maintained it? +1 for removing from 2.4.x branch no arguments here if someone actually wants it to hang around in trunk, but I don't actually know if anybody cares so no vote on trunk ATM... I agree, this discussion is only about 2.4.x branch for the imminent T&R. If I have a third +1 for removing this horridly wrong example/, I'll commit in the next 2 hours. If there is disagreement later, we can always revert. Bill
