Re: [CLOSED] [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.28 as GA

2017-10-05 Thread William A Rowe Jr 
Sorry I ran out of cycles to jump on this on the 4th, and didn't see anyone
step up,
so I went ahead and still pushed it out a day late/day early this
afternoon. Hope you
had a worthwhile conference. Please help me double check any errors or
omissions,
I think it was already staged correctly.

You're welcome, for the bounce/"unsubscribe me" traffic save :) The noise
was
actually tolerable, I think our efforts to unsub unroutable accounts is
having some
impact. I just wish we got more feedback by default of whether this was the
@a.o
or @httpd.a.o traffic responses.





On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> Sure. Anyone who wants to announce, please do so!! :)
>
> > On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:47 AM, William A Rowe Jr 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> >> With more than the required 3 +1 (binding) votes, and no
> >> vetos, I call this vote CLOSED with the result that
> >> the vote passes.
> >>
> >> I will start moving the artifacts for mirror sync and
> >> let's plan on announcing on Friday.
> >
> > Uhm, why?
> >
> > I understand you are travelling for conference, so someone else might
> > need to step up to broadcast the messages. But it only takes 24 hours
> > for all mirrors to catch up... why ask the community to wait till Friday?
> > E.g. jchampion stepped in last time I had to be AFK so we could push
> > out an announcement, I'm certain someone will step up.
> >
> > Footnote - thank you for providing some extra time to hopefully identify
> > the mod_http2 load issues. Once identified and patched, and I'm happy
> > to tag 2.4.29 immediately, if you aren't available, so we can offer fewer
> > stress exceptions in this GA code.
>
>

Re: svn commit: r1808230 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/server/protocol.c

2017-10-05 Thread William A Rowe Jr 
We have been at 2.4.29-dev for a few days now, are you ready to advance
this proposal?



On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:07 PM, William A Rowe Jr 
wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Joe Orton  wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:39:54AM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> >> This defect still appears to exist in 2.4.28-dev, no?
> >>
> >> The rewrite appears to have enjoyed both committer and external testing
> and
> >> the patch looks suitable for backport. It has enjoyed careful
> consideration by
> >> at least four committers.
> >>
> >> Reading https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61222#c19 Joe
> was
> >> eyeing some additional improvements, but it seems worthwhile to get this
> >> defect fixed in today's T
> >>
> >> Joe, is there a reason to hold on backporting, why this hasn't been
> promoted
> >> to 2.4 STATUS? If you are satisfied, here's my +1 for the backport to
> speed
> >> things up.
> >
> > I don't plan any additional changes, no.  But I'm not very confident we
> > should be throwing a major rewrite of a core filter at 2.4 users with
> > only light testing, especially since there are security fixes pending.
> >
> > I have put this patch in Fedora "Raw Hide" builds to give some extra
> > exposure, and I'd love to hear more testing results here. Given that the
> > bug has sat festering for a long time (maybe since 2.2??) I don't see
> > any urgency, I'd rather get a bit more testing and wait until after .28
> > to ship and avoid regressions.
>
> Cool, add my +1 into your STATUS proposal once 2.4.29-dev rolls around,
> and let's let this live on the maintenance dev branch as long as possible
> to
> pick up any regressions.
>
> Thanks for all your effort on this!
>

Re: .gdbinit changes backports. CTR or RTC?

2017-10-05 Thread William A Rowe Jr 
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Eric Covener  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
>  wrote:
> > Is backporting .gdbinit changes to a stable branch CTR or RTC?
>
> I would think CTR for a typical change there is reasonable.
>

+1, this falls into platform-specific-quirks stuff that has long been CTR.

So are Jim's proposed fixes for clang 900, I'd think. Will vote that up
anyways in case of confusion, it looks reasonable on the surface.

Re: .gdbinit changes backports. CTR or RTC?

2017-10-05 Thread Yann Ylavic 
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
>  wrote:
>> Is backporting .gdbinit changes to a stable branch CTR or RTC?
>
> I would think CTR for a typical change there is reasonable.

+1

Nit: about commit, s/childs/children/ ?

Re: .gdbinit changes backports. CTR or RTC?

2017-10-05 Thread Eric Covener 
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
 wrote:
> Is backporting .gdbinit changes to a stable branch CTR or RTC?

I would think CTR for a typical change there is reasonable.

.gdbinit changes backports. CTR or RTC?

2017-10-05 Thread Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group 
Is backporting .gdbinit changes to a stable branch CTR or RTC?

Regards

Rüdiger