Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
Paul Querna wrote: Hi dev@, FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. How about starting the process not with a roll, but with a proposed software configuration and feature set? Just OTTOMH and from a quick look at trunk, I see: - authnz revised again - mod_sed - mod_session - Expression parser (I dropped the ball there but intend to pick it up) - Simple MPM status? - drop_privileges architecture and modules - status of mod_cache submodules? - are we going to revive mod_proxy_fcgi? Some of that is pretty-much untested. And then there are not-in-trunk things some of us have in view, like lua and dtrace: where do they stand if you start rolling willy-nilly? I think we need to start stabilizing trunk, and getting on the path of doing 2.4.x 'soon'. +1 to that, and thanks for raising it. -- Nick Kew
Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
On Nov 28, 2008, at 3:50 PM, Paul Querna wrote: Would be nice if someone had time to polish mod_proxy_fcgi Come January, I have free cycles... Dec, esp before Christmas will be tight. But this is something that I really want to spend some time on.
Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
On Nov 28, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Hi dev@,
FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in
about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th.
As in the previous 2.${odd} release cycles, this is not a stable
release, do not guarantee a stable ABI, and would not be recommended
for production usage:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/VERSIONING
I think we need to start stabilizing trunk, and getting on the path
of doing 2.4.x 'soon'.
In other words, if you wanted some big ass feature in 2.4, start
coding now, your time is short :D
I will be adding at least 2 new hooks to mod_proxy...
Plus, I'd like for the monitor hook to take some useful arguments
rather than just a pool :) :)
Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
Not sure what happened to this yesterday ... reposting. Begin forwarded message: Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:32:50 + From: Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha Paul Querna wrote: Hi dev@, FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. How about starting the process not with a roll, but with a proposed software configuration and feature set? Just OTTOMH and from a quick look at trunk, I see: - authnz revised again - mod_sed - mod_session - Expression parser (I dropped the ball there but intend to pick it up) - Simple MPM status? - drop_privileges architecture and modules - status of mod_cache submodules? - are we going to revive mod_proxy_fcgi? Some of that is pretty-much untested. And then there are not-in-trunk things some of us have in view, like lua and dtrace: where do they stand if you start rolling willy-nilly? I think we need to start stabilizing trunk, and getting on the path of doing 2.4.x 'soon'. +1 to that, and thanks for raising it. -- Nick Kew
Re: Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
Nick Kew wrote: Paul Querna wrote: Hi dev@, FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. How about starting the process not with a roll, but with a proposed software configuration and feature set? IMHO, that's the difference between having a dialog and having something in hand to comment on. With the .0-alpha tarball, people could make a specific comment, such as [T +10 days from now]... Nick Kew writes: Just OTTOMH and from a quick look at 2.3.0, I see we are missing: - Expression parser (I dropped the ball there but intend to pick it up) and then that's an action item on yourself for 2.3.1. I don't think anyone expects 2.3.0 to be feature complete, that's why we let 2.3.x hang around a little while. +1 to creating a candidate.
Re: Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Nick Kew wrote: Paul Querna wrote: Hi dev@, FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. How about starting the process not with a roll, but with a proposed software configuration and feature set? IMHO, that's the difference between having a dialog and having something in hand to comment on. With the .0-alpha tarball, people could make a specific comment, such as [T +10 days from now]... Nick Kew writes: Just OTTOMH and from a quick look at 2.3.0, I see we are missing: - Expression parser (I dropped the ball there but intend to pick it up) and then that's an action item on yourself for 2.3.1. I don't think anyone expects 2.3.0 to be feature complete, that's why we let 2.3.x hang around a little while. +1 to creating a candidate. Exactly -- basing the first alpha around a long feature list will just delay it too long. Version numbers are cheap, and when a feature is done, it goes into the next alpha :-) IMO one of the lessons of 2.1.x is that having 5-10 alpha releases are just fine, as long as they are labeled as such, and it significantly helps the code base in a relatively short period, over just continuing on with trunk, like we have for the last 3 years. -Paul
Re: Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: IMHO, that's the difference between having a dialog and having something in hand to comment on. With the .0-alpha tarball, people could make a specific comment, such as [T +10 days from now]... Am I right in understanding that it remains possible to make changes to the ABI between v2.3.0 and v2.3.1, or must we get any changes like that finalised before then? Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Fw: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
Graham Leggett wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: IMHO, that's the difference between having a dialog and having something in hand to comment on. With the .0-alpha tarball, people could make a specific comment, such as [T +10 days from now]... Am I right in understanding that it remains possible to make changes to the ABI between v2.3.0 and v2.3.1, or must we get any changes like that finalised before then? You can change the ABI until 2.4.0, then it behaves like 2.2.x. 2.3.x can be completely unstable between versions, although we should try to avoid it if we can. -Paul
Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
Hi dev@,
FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about
3 years, on Saturday December 6th.
As in the previous 2.${odd} release cycles, this is not a stable
release, do not guarantee a stable ABI, and would not be recommended for
production usage:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/VERSIONING
I think we need to start stabilizing trunk, and getting on the path of
doing 2.4.x 'soon'.
In other words, if you wanted some big ass feature in 2.4, start coding
now, your time is short :D
Thanks,
Paul
Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Paul Querna wrote: FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. +1, let's get that code out there. As part of this process, I would like us (the group) to identify *early* which third party modules are popular with our userbase, and pro-actively approach their vendors so that they know what we're doing. Then they can make their plans to release without being blindsided. Off the top of my head I'm thinking: * PHP * Oracle (WebLogic) * Breach (ModSecurity) Let's throw this on the user list once the Alpha is out and see what's important to them. S. -- Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
Sander Temme wrote: On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Paul Querna wrote: FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. +1, let's get that code out there. As part of this process, I would like us (the group) to identify *early* which third party modules are popular with our userbase, and pro-actively approach their vendors so that they know what we're doing. Then they can make their plans to release without being blindsided. Off the top of my head I'm thinking: * PHP * Oracle (WebLogic) * Breach (ModSecurity) FastCGI support for Rails, Django, etc. mod_fcgid seems to be the most popular now days. Would be nice if someone had time to polish mod_proxy_fcgi -Paul
Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
On 11/28/2008 06:58 PM, Sander Temme wrote: On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Paul Querna wrote: FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. +1, let's get that code out there. As part of this process, I would like us (the group) to identify *early* which third party modules are popular with our userbase, and pro-actively approach their vendors so that they know what we're doing. Then they can make their plans to release without being blindsided. Off the top of my head I'm thinking: * PHP * Oracle (WebLogic) * Breach (ModSecurity) Let's throw this on the user list once the Alpha is out and see what's important to them. +1 to this approach. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
mod_perl comes to mind too. To a lesser extend mod_security and mod_macro. ~Jorge On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/28/2008 06:58 PM, Sander Temme wrote: On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Paul Querna wrote: FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th. +1, let's get that code out there. As part of this process, I would like us (the group) to identify *early* which third party modules are popular with our userbase, and pro-actively approach their vendors so that they know what we're doing. Then they can make their plans to release without being blindsided. Off the top of my head I'm thinking: * PHP * Oracle (WebLogic) * Breach (ModSecurity) Let's throw this on the user list once the Alpha is out and see what's important to them. +1 to this approach. Regards Rüdiger
Re: Intent to Roll 2.3.0-alpha
Jorge Schrauwen wrote: mod_perl comes to mind too. yeah really *cough* mod perl committer -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c:703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. - http://p6m7g8.net 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching.
