Re: 3.2.6 test period - how long do we wait?

[Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy]

I'd give a conditional +1 - I think it'd be good to sort out why previous 
releases passed on FreeBSD and this one does not. Perhaps people who ran 
FreeBSD tests could try an earlier mod_python version test to see if it 
too fails?

Grisha

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:

Good enough for me. Shall we vote? If so I am:

+1

Jim

Graham Dumpleton wrote:
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