Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[Jim Jagielski]

Works for me...

btw: for things like the below, I actually use git-svn, which, at
least to me, provides a workflow which I find easier.

> On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Stefan Eissing  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Am 08.09.2015 um 03:56 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
>> 
>> On Sep 7, 2015 1:14 PM, "Stefan Eissing"  
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks, new branch to bring in protocols and mod_h2 is at
>>> 
>>>   
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.17-protocols-http2
>> 
>> I am fine with either approach. . not a critique,
>> 
>> I think the simplest is to prove up all core httpd patches, and propose 
>> modules/http2 straight from trunk (or the rev you think is most appropriate, 
>> modulo some small backport patch).
>> 
>> At least, that's what I have been looking at for the past 2 weeks, the patch 
>> list was less approachable :)
> 
> As for reviewing the diffs, it's certainly make only sense for the things 
> outside modules/http2 for this initial backport.
> 
> YMMV, but I myself prefer the branches, as it gives me superior tool support 
> for handling changes, especially when three(!) source trees are involved: 
> ongoing trunk, 2.4.x and the backport change. 
> 
> So, if I forgot something from trunk:
>> cd httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal
>> svn merge -c  ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
>> #review and commit
> 
> If something else has been backported, I update my proposal:
>> cd httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal
>> svn merge ^/httpd/httpd/2.4.x .
>> #review and commit
> 
> If my backport is accepted:
>> cd httpd/2.4.xl
>> svn merge ^/httpd/httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal .
>> #review and commit
> 
> Subversion nowadays is quite potent with branch merges.
> 
> //Stefan
> 
> bytes GmbH
> Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany
> Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
> 
> 
> 

Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[Stefan Eissing]

> Am 08.09.2015 um 03:56 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
> 
> On Sep 7, 2015 1:14 PM, "Stefan Eissing"  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, new branch to bring in protocols and mod_h2 is at
> >
> >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.17-protocols-http2
> 
> I am fine with either approach. . not a critique,
> 
> I think the simplest is to prove up all core httpd patches, and propose 
> modules/http2 straight from trunk (or the rev you think is most appropriate, 
> modulo some small backport patch).
> 
> At least, that's what I have been looking at for the past 2 weeks, the patch 
> list was less approachable :)

As for reviewing the diffs, it's certainly make only sense for the things 
outside modules/http2 for this initial backport.

YMMV, but I myself prefer the branches, as it gives me superior tool support 
for handling changes, especially when three(!) source trees are involved: 
ongoing trunk, 2.4.x and the backport change. 

So, if I forgot something from trunk:
 > cd httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal
 > svn merge -c  ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
 > #review and commit

If something else has been backported, I update my proposal:
 > cd httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal
 > svn merge ^/httpd/httpd/2.4.x .
 > #review and commit

If my backport is accepted:
 > cd httpd/2.4.xl
 > svn merge ^/httpd/httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal .
 > #review and commit

Subversion nowadays is quite potent with branch merges.

//Stefan

bytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany
Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782

Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[Stefan Eissing]

I did not dare to mention the three letter g* word here... ;-)

> Am 08.09.2015 um 13:15 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
> 
> Works for me...
> 
> btw: for things like the below, I actually use git-svn, which, at
> least to me, provides a workflow which I find easier.
> 
>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Stefan Eissing  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 08.09.2015 um 03:56 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
>>> 
>>> On Sep 7, 2015 1:14 PM, "Stefan Eissing"  
>>> wrote:
 
 Thanks, new branch to bring in protocols and mod_h2 is at
 
  
 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.17-protocols-http2
>>> 
>>> I am fine with either approach. . not a critique,
>>> 
>>> I think the simplest is to prove up all core httpd patches, and propose 
>>> modules/http2 straight from trunk (or the rev you think is most 
>>> appropriate, modulo some small backport patch).
>>> 
>>> At least, that's what I have been looking at for the past 2 weeks, the 
>>> patch list was less approachable :)
>> 
>> As for reviewing the diffs, it's certainly make only sense for the things 
>> outside modules/http2 for this initial backport.
>> 
>> YMMV, but I myself prefer the branches, as it gives me superior tool support 
>> for handling changes, especially when three(!) source trees are involved: 
>> ongoing trunk, 2.4.x and the backport change. 
>> 
>> So, if I forgot something from trunk:
>>> cd httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal
>>> svn merge -c  ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
>>> #review and commit
>> 
>> If something else has been backported, I update my proposal:
>>> cd httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal
>>> svn merge ^/httpd/httpd/2.4.x .
>>> #review and commit
>> 
>> If my backport is accepted:
>>> cd httpd/2.4.xl
>>> svn merge ^/httpd/httpd/2.4.17-my-backport-proposal .
>>> #review and commit
>> 
>> Subversion nowadays is quite potent with branch merges.
>> 
>> //Stefan
>> 
>> bytes GmbH
>> Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany
>> Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

bytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany
Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782

Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[Stefan Eissing]

Thanks, new branch to bring in protocols and mod_h2 is at

   https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.17-protocols-http2

One may get a diff and the list of merged changes with

   svn diff ^/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x 
^/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.17-protocols-http2

Any future updates to 2.4.x I will merge into the temp branch, so that the diff 
only reflects the proposed changes. I will remove the folder in 
^/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.17-protocols-http2 after the merge into 2.4.x.

If you have any questions regarding this branch or how to work with it, please 
let me know. I hope this works well for everyone. 

cheers,

  Stefan

> Am 05.09.2015 um 16:21 schrieb Graham Leggett :
> 
> On 05 Sep 2015, at 9:21 AM, Stefan Eissing  
> wrote:
> 
>> yes, it should. where do you not see it?
>> 
>> (i wish we'd use branches instead of this patch file madness)
> 
> A branch is possible, create one beneath here:
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/
> 
> Regards,
> Graham
> —
> 

bytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany
Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782

Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[William A Rowe Jr]

On Sep 7, 2015 1:14 PM, "Stefan Eissing" 
wrote:
>
> Thanks, new branch to bring in protocols and mod_h2 is at
>
>
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.17-protocols-http2

I am fine with either approach. . not a critique,

I think the simplest is to prove up all core httpd patches, and propose
modules/http2 straight from trunk (or the rev you think is most
appropriate, modulo some small backport patch).

At least, that's what I have been looking at for the past 2 weeks, the
patch list was less approachable :)

Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[Gregg Smith]

In core-h2-all-in-one-v4.patch line 8586
+if (!offers || ap_array_contains(offers, *protos)) {
the old ap_array_contains is in use

On 9/5/2015 12:21 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:

yes, it should. where do you not see it?

(i wish we'd use branches instead of this patch file madness)


Am 05.09.2015 um 06:12 schrieb Gregg Smith:

Shouldn't this be ap_array_str_contains now in h2_switch.c?

+while (*protos) {
+/* Add all protocols we know (tls or clear) and that
+ * are part of the offerings (if there have been any).
+ */
-->+if (!offers || ap_array_contains(offers, *protos)) {
+ap_log_cerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_TRACE1, 0, c,
+  "proposing protocol '%s'", *protos);

Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[Stefan Eissing]

yes, it should. where do you not see it?

(i wish we'd use branches instead of this patch file madness)

> Am 05.09.2015 um 06:12 schrieb Gregg Smith :
> 
> Shouldn't this be ap_array_str_contains now in h2_switch.c?
> 
> +while (*protos) {
> +/* Add all protocols we know (tls or clear) and that
> + * are part of the offerings (if there have been any).
> + */
> -->+if (!offers || ap_array_contains(offers, *protos)) {
> +ap_log_cerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_TRACE1, 0, c,
> +  "proposing protocol '%s'", *protos);
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[Graham Leggett]

On 05 Sep 2015, at 9:21 AM, Stefan Eissing  wrote:

> yes, it should. where do you not see it?
> 
> (i wish we'd use branches instead of this patch file madness)

A branch is possible, create one beneath here:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/

Regards,
Graham
—

Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[Eric Covener]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Stefan Eissing
 wrote:
> (i wish we'd use branches instead of this patch file madness)

I think a short-lived feature branch would be acceptable.  I'm
personally a pretty primitive svn user.

Re: proposed backport of mod_h2 - v4

[Gregg Smith]

Shouldn't this be ap_array_str_contains now in h2_switch.c?

+while (*protos) {
+/* Add all protocols we know (tls or clear) and that
+ * are part of the offerings (if there have been any).
+ */
-->+if (!offers || ap_array_contains(offers, *protos)) {
+ap_log_cerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_TRACE1, 0, c,
+  "proposing protocol '%s'", *protos);