Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-05-01 Thread Eric Covener 
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Christophe JAILLET
 wrote:
> Le 02/03/2017 à 15:27, Jim Jagielski a écrit :
>>
>> Should we start thinking about having a release this month?
>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>>
>>> Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
>>> to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
>>> offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
>>> whoever wishes to RM.
>>
>>
> doc update in r1776463 suggests that this patch was intended for 2.4.25.
> This is not merged yet, neither proposed for backport.
>
>
> Should it be?

Yes, thanks for spotting. I will take a look this afternoon.

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-05-01 Thread Christophe JAILLET 

Le 02/03/2017 à 15:27, Jim Jagielski a écrit :

Should we start thinking about having a release this month?


On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
whoever wishes to RM.



doc update in r1776463 suggests that this patch was intended for 2.4.25.
This is not merged yet, neither proposed for backport.


Should it be?

CJ

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-18 Thread Eric Covener 
Apparently unscathed / unattempted.

https://twitter.com/zh4ck/status/843036999569346560

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> Should we start thinking about having a release this month?
>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>>
>>> Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
>>> to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
>>> offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
>>> whoever wishes to RM.
>>
>
> +1 but keep in mind pwn2own has that mid-month (3-15/3-17) event w/
> the big  Apache-on-Ubuntu bounty.



-- 
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-02 Thread Stefan Eissing 
+1

> Am 02.03.2017 um 16:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
> 
> Right... I was thinking the latter half of the month
> 
>> On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Eric Covener  wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> Should we start thinking about having a release this month?
>>> 
 On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
 
 Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
 to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
 offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
 whoever wishes to RM.
>>> 
>> 
>> +1 but keep in mind pwn2own has that mid-month (3-15/3-17) event w/
>> the big  Apache-on-Ubuntu bounty.
> 

Stefan Eissing

bytes GmbH
Hafenstrasse 16
48155 Münster
www.greenbytes.de

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-02 Thread Jim Jagielski 
Right... I was thinking the latter half of the month

> On Mar 2, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> Should we start thinking about having a release this month?
>> 
>>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
>>> to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
>>> offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
>>> whoever wishes to RM.
>> 
> 
> +1 but keep in mind pwn2own has that mid-month (3-15/3-17) event w/
> the big  Apache-on-Ubuntu bounty.

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-02 Thread Eric Covener 
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> Should we start thinking about having a release this month?
>
>> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>
>> Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
>> to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
>> offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
>> whoever wishes to RM.
>

+1 but keep in mind pwn2own has that mid-month (3-15/3-17) event w/
the big  Apache-on-Ubuntu bounty.

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-03-02 Thread Jim Jagielski 
Should we start thinking about having a release this month?

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
> to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
> offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
> whoever wishes to RM.

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-02-17 Thread Jim Jagielski 
All IMHO:

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 6:46 PM, William A Rowe Jr  wrote:
> 
> With the passing of OpenSSL 1.0.1, is OpenSSL 1.1.0 on our radar for the next 
> release?

Depends on the status of the patch support...

> 
> I'm not clear how that merge branch is intended to be used, I'm don't 
> understand whether we propose to adopt every feature and API change commit to 
> modules/ssl/* - and why it has been rebased, unless we intend to svn cp the 
> resulting tree on top of modules/ssl/.
> 
> I'm set up to review it against 1.1.0, if I understood how that branch would 
> be applied.
> 
> 
> On Feb 16, 2017 11:25 AM, "Jim Jagielski"  wrote:
> Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
> to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
> offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
> whoever wishes to RM.

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-02-17 Thread Luca Toscano 
My personal wishlist:

1) Openssl 1.1.x support, a lot of people are asking for it in various
support channels and it seems important to catch up with others project
that already support it :)

2) Yann's work on mpm-event to remove the unnecessary 100ms of polling even
when idling. I am really looking forward to see this patch on 2.4.x, but it
might need more testing on platform different from Linux.

3) New mod_http2 features from Stefan to fix recent issues reported in dev@

4) mod_proxy_fcgi rework from Jim, Jacob and Eric.


Luca

2017-02-17 10:12 GMT+01:00 Stefan Eissing :

> Also interested in the state of the openssl 1.1.0 support. Having it in
> the next release would be great. OpenSSL has promised TLS 1.3 beginning of
> April as a drop in against the 1.1.0 ABI - which remains to be seem if that
> works, but would be nice to be ready for it.
>
> > Am 17.02.2017 um 00:46 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
> >
> > With the passing of OpenSSL 1.0.1, is OpenSSL 1.1.0 on our radar for the
> next release?
> >
> > I'm not clear how that merge branch is intended to be used, I'm don't
> understand whether we propose to adopt every feature and API change commit
> to modules/ssl/* - and why it has been rebased, unless we intend to svn cp
> the resulting tree on top of modules/ssl/.
> >
> > I'm set up to review it against 1.1.0, if I understood how that branch
> would be applied.
> >
> >
> > On Feb 16, 2017 11:25 AM, "Jim Jagielski"  wrote:
> > Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
> > to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
> > offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
> > whoever wishes to RM.
>
> Stefan Eissing
>
> bytes GmbH
> Hafenstrasse 16
> 48155 Münster
> www.greenbytes.de
>
>

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-02-17 Thread Stefan Eissing 
Also interested in the state of the openssl 1.1.0 support. Having it in the 
next release would be great. OpenSSL has promised TLS 1.3 beginning of April as 
a drop in against the 1.1.0 ABI - which remains to be seem if that works, but 
would be nice to be ready for it.

> Am 17.02.2017 um 00:46 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
> 
> With the passing of OpenSSL 1.0.1, is OpenSSL 1.1.0 on our radar for the next 
> release?
> 
> I'm not clear how that merge branch is intended to be used, I'm don't 
> understand whether we propose to adopt every feature and API change commit to 
> modules/ssl/* - and why it has been rebased, unless we intend to svn cp the 
> resulting tree on top of modules/ssl/.
> 
> I'm set up to review it against 1.1.0, if I understood how that branch would 
> be applied.
> 
> 
> On Feb 16, 2017 11:25 AM, "Jim Jagielski"  wrote:
> Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
> to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
> offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
> whoever wishes to RM.

Stefan Eissing

bytes GmbH
Hafenstrasse 16
48155 Münster
www.greenbytes.de

Re: Topic for discussion... 2.4.26

2017-02-16 Thread William A Rowe Jr 
With the passing of OpenSSL 1.0.1, is OpenSSL 1.1.0 on our radar for the
next release?

I'm not clear how that merge branch is intended to be used, I'm don't
understand whether we propose to adopt every feature and API change commit
to modules/ssl/* - and why it has been rebased, unless we intend to svn cp
the resulting tree on top of modules/ssl/.

I'm set up to review it against 1.1.0, if I understood how that branch
would be applied.


On Feb 16, 2017 11:25 AM, "Jim Jagielski"  wrote:

> Would be nice, I think, to start discussion on a T of 2.4.26 and
> to open the doors to who wants to RM. Note, that if *nobody*
> offers to RM, I will... and no matter what, I offer to help
> whoever wishes to RM.
>