I am having problems with posts to python-dev mailing list from home occassionally disappearing in a black hole. Thus my post on this topic before Jim brought it up in the first place vanished. What I has said was:
>> this code runs smoothly, i.e. no segfaults, all tests passed: >> FreeBSD 4.9: >> >> Apache/2.0.50 (prefork) Python/2.3.4 >> Apache/2.0.55 (prefork) Python/2.4.2 > > Okay, this is good. > > If there is a general consensus that this is a reasonable solution, > the question is what should be done with 3.2.6. Should it be released > with this problem in it and fix it later in 3.3? > > Personally, I really don't think that connection handlers in > mod_python get used by anyone and so don't see a pressing need to go > fixing it right now. Thus I would say go with 3.2.6 as final with how > it is. > > Is there anything else of concern that is holding us up now on an > official release of 3.2.6? In other words, I agree with Nicolas, we should just release it. If someone actually came up and said they were using connection handlers for something significant, then I might change this view, but I doubt anyone is using them. I would also point out that JIRA lists lots of other issues, some of them minor and trivial to fix but which would be more worthwhile than fixing than this connection handler issue. We have already said we will defer these in the interest of getting a final version of 3.2 out sooner rather than later. Thus, as much as I would prefer to see as much as possible fixed, I think we just have defer further changes to next version. Graham Jim Gallacher wrote .. > Nicolas Lehuen wrote: > > OK, so shall we schedule the 3.2.x release for 2007, then ? > > > > As for the Apache 2.2 version, what if we roll in your suggested > > patch, Jim, then discover a bunch of problem related to it during the > > beta tests ? Will we wait until they are all fixed to release the 3.2 > > version ? Apache 2.2 is quite new so we'll likely to have to squish > > bugs, due for example to new interaction between Apache filters and > > mod_python. That's a wild guess but filters have been modified in > > Apache 2.2 so I'm sure something evil lurks there. > > I'm totally happy to defer changes for Apache 2.2 as I don't personally > plan on migrating any time soon. The only reason I brought it up is that > some of the code which seems to be causing issues for Apache 2.2 happens > to reside in connobject.c, which is an area of interest for the > _conn_read issue. Even if we were to roll fixes for apache 2.2 into mp > 3.2, I'm not suggesting we advertise apache 2.2 compatibility just yet. > > > > <bitter>Or we could simply forget about making the release one day and > > tell every user to use the latest snapshot from subversion. Sorry to > > be like that, but we have users out there that would be perfectly > > happy with the current state of the 3.2.6 version, and a lot of our > > answers on the mailing list are "yup, we know this bug, it's already > > been fixed one year ago, but don't worry, you'll get the bugfix soon > > enough".</bitter> > > Point taken, and it is a very good point indeed. > > > Once again, it seems that no regression have been introduced in 3.2.6 > > vs 3.1.4, so we should release it ASAP and try to keep a steady > > release rythm afterwards. When we'll get momentum we'll solve a bunch > > of problem pretty fast, but it's been a year now that we are paralysed > > by perfectionism. What could be worse than leaving our users out there > > with the current 3.1.4 version ? > > I *still* wonder why the whole ConnectionHandler issue was not seen on > FreeBSD with mp 3.1.4 though. I'll need to check the svn logs again but > I'm pretty sure this is not a new unit test. > > That being said I'm not personally concerned about this issue since it > doesn't affect every platform (or more selfishly I should say it doesn't > affect the OS I'm working on) and I suspect that not many people are > directly interacting with the connection object. > > What's that old line about open source software... Release early, > release often? > > Jim > > > 2006/1/31, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >>I assume we will be doing a 3.2.7 release if Graham's fix for the > >>ConnectionHandler / MODPYTHON-102 problem works? > >> > >>If that is the case I wonder if we should roll in the changes to support > >>apache 2.2. I scanned mod_python for deprecated or removed apr calls > and > >>can find only one (apr_sockaddr_port_get), plus the missing > >>APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS macro. > >> > >>The original macro is: > >> > >>#define APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS(s) ((s) == APR_SUCCESS \ > >> || (s) == APR_OS_START_SYSERR + NO_ERROR) > >> > >> > >>The discussion on httpd-dev suggested that this macro should be > >>substituted with a simple test such as "if (rc != APR_SUCCESS)", and > the > >>'||' condition was not likely used. So that we are making the fewest > >>possible changes to our current 3.2 codebase, I'd suggest reimplenting > >>APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS in our code, and then removing it 3.3. This will > >>give us lot's of time as we work on 3.3 to discover if there are any > >>problems droping the APR_OS_START_SYSERR part of the test. > >> > >>Jim > >> > > > >
