> Am 19.01.2017 um 06:34 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26
>>> that
>>> finally proves to be a workable upgrade for all httpd users?
>>
>> It sounds reasonable to me, but I think it's a bit of an oversell --
>> It's just going to be a little bit of stabilization.
>>
>> AFAICT so far there is:
>>
>> One 2.4.25 regression committed:
>>
>> *) mod_proxy_{ajp,fcgi}: Fix a possible crash when reusing an established
>> backend connection, happening with LogLevel trace2 or higher configured,
>> or at any log level with compilers not detected as C99 compliant (e.g.
>> MSVC on Windows). [Yann Ylavic]
>>
>> One older regression listed as a showstopper:
>>
>> *) PR 60576: 2.4.21 broke PHP-FPM with the patch to strip the bogus
>> "proxy://"
>> prefix from SCRIPT_FILENAME. We need to revert to the previous behavior
>> ASAP to avoid any further hurdles with FCGI implementations while we
>> figure
>> this out.
>>
>> And a fix for an old bug that missed being backported until a bugzilla
>> review:
>>
>> *) mod_proxy_fcgi, mod_fcgid: Fix crashes in ap_fcgi_encoded_env_len() when
>> modules add empty environment variables to the request. PR60275.
>> [<alex2grad AT gmail.com>]
>>
>> Is there anything else we should list as a showstopper?
>
> That is my underlying question; what else qualifies?
>
> Win32 build fix of mod_status is already in 2.4.x branch two hours following
> the 2.4.25 re-tag, so that also is resolved.
>
> Yann's proposal to accept the newly-prohibited obs-fold that we approved into
> 2.2.32 would also seem to qualify.
>
> So far, I haven't heard from an httpd committer who is actually interested in
> our shipping such a release. I'd be happy to tag and roll, but this is more so
> a poll whether there is interest in having non-enhancement 2.4.x releases
> by the PMC/committer core, or whether there is a desire for a fork for users
> who are not PMC members but are actively interested in pursuing a "stable"
> build.
It will surprise no one that I like to release more often. OTOH I do not like
to break things.
The current release model clearly does not work well, in my limited experience
over that last 15 months. Why?
httpd is a rich product used in literally millions of different setups. This
complexity is beyond our resources to test. Adding new functionality at the
same time is just too much.
That is why I am sticking to the separate releases of mod_http2 on github.
Those get new code tested very frequently by adventourous users, finding bugs
and giving suggestions. The http/2 implementation wouldn't be that far without
them.
Distros seem to have realized the problem long ago and make their own httpd
versions. First time I realized my "httpd 2.4.7" is not the 2.4.7 release was a
WTF moment.
Personally, I like even/odd version schemes for stable/dev versions. But
whatever works is fine. There are a lot of successful projects in and outside
ASF with a good release scheme. Let's steal with pride one we think is good.
Cheers,
Stefan
