Re: please set up a mod_python core group
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:01:07PM -0500, Jorey Bump wrote: ... So, please, take a few moments to decide amongst yourselves who should have binding votes on mod_python (i.e., who has earned it), ... I vote that Grisha gets all three votes. Benevolent dictatorship is the Python way, after all. But that isn't how Apache works. Therefore, it is a non-starter. Cheers, -g -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/
Re: please set up a mod_python core group
Jorey Bump wrote: Mike Looijmans wrote: Seriously, I think Grisha's way is right - the three musketeers should decide based on the feedback they get. There's no substitute for running on other people's machines... 2006/1/19, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks Roy. Very timely, since 3.2.6 is (so far) going to be a final/stable release. I propose that for starters those people are: me (I'm also in the Apache HTTP Server PMC) Jim Gallacher Nicolas Lehuen Graham Dumpleton +1 here, but since the build process and typical MPM differs among platforms, could we see a list that this group represents? I'm most interested in default nonvirtualized environments used in production or for principal development. This information will be useful when reviewing release candidates, to make sure we haven't overlooked any key platforms. IOW, could you guys list the OS on which you run, and not merely test, mod_python? By you guys I assume you mean the above 4 people? I'm not sure how relevant this is since looking at that information from just 4 people is too small a sample to determine if the code is ready for release. Hopefully Roy will clarify, but I see the role of the core group more as meta voters, where we vote on the voting. So in theory, the core group could vote for a release even if none of them has ever actually compiled or used mod_python. On the other hand, you may mean *all* the people on python-dev who test a release candidate should list their production platform. This would be useful to the core group as another data point in deciding on casting a binding vote to proceed to release. That being said, I do eat my own dogfood, so here is my setup: Development and testing (mod_python and my own stuff): Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.0.55 mpm-prefork, python 2.3.5 Testing (mod_python only, using qemu) Linux Debian stable (sarge), Apache 2.0.54 mpm-prefork, python 2.3.4 Linux Debian stable (sarge), Apache 2.0.54 mpm-worker, python 2.3.4 Production Linux Debian stable (sarge), Apache 2.0.54 mpm-prefork, python 2.3.4 Similar to Nicolas, I need mpm-prefork as there are some php applications on the production server. Your point on making sure we don't overlook any key platforms in our testing is a good one. Should we (python-dev people) put together a list of key platforms as a future guide? It's likely a good idea, even at the risk of a flamewar. ;) I thought I'd put together a summary of 3.2.6 test results in the next few days anyway, which should be a good starting point for the key list. Jim
Re: please set up a mod_python core group
Jim Gallacher wrote: Jorey Bump wrote: IOW, could you guys list the OS on which you run, and not merely test, mod_python? By you guys I assume you mean the above 4 people? Yeah, youse 4 guys. :) On the other hand, you may mean *all* the people on python-dev who test a release candidate should list their production platform. This would be useful to the core group as another data point in deciding on casting a binding vote to proceed to release. No, I'm just interested in the core group. Everyone else gets an opportunity to list platforms when testing new releases, in pass/fail feedback responses. Your point on making sure we don't overlook any key platforms in our testing is a good one. Should we (python-dev people) put together a list of key platforms as a future guide? It's likely a good idea, even at the risk of a flamewar. ;) I thought I'd put together a summary of 3.2.6 test results in the next few days anyway, which should be a good starting point for the key list. A small checklist might be useful, such as Windows/Mac/Linux/UNIX/BSD. This has been handled fairly well in the past, but that might be due to luck. I'm concerned that some last minute fix will be checked into a stable release candidate without sufficient cross-platform testing. I mainly use Python in UNIX-like environments, and I forget how popular it is on Windows (the same goes for Apache). Ideally, it would be nice to solicit feedback from package maintainers. I use Slackware, which doesn't include Apache 2 or mod_python, so I can tell immediately how it's going to perform in my production systems. Users of stock Red Hat, Debian, SUSE, Mandriva, FreeBSD, Mac, etc. can't be so sure. The package maintainers are in the best position to flag potential problems. But this is an issue shared by many open source projects, and we'll need to be satisfied with the participation we get, and try our best to create a stable release.
Re: please set up a mod_python core group
Jim Gallacher wrote: Jorey Bump wrote: +1 here, but since the build process and typical MPM differs among platforms, could we see a list that this group represents? I'm most interested in default nonvirtualized environments used in production or for principal development. This information will be useful when reviewing release candidates, to make sure we haven't overlooked any key platforms. Your point on making sure we don't overlook any key platforms in our testing is a good one. Should we (python-dev people) put together a list of key platforms as a future guide? It's likely a good idea, even at the risk of a flamewar. ;) I thought I'd put together a summary of 3.2.6 test results in the next few days anyway, which should be a good starting point for the key list. As a non-x86 user (amd64 here), I second the notion that we need some non-Linux non-x86 platform testing out there, if people were willing to commit to be available to build and test when that time comes around (I think it's been pretty good, about every 2 months it's been on average?). I know there are people on PPC OSX, FreeBSD, AIX, Tru64, Solaris, and I just think it's a good idea to have a general concensus that a build will work on at least some of these platforms that both apache and Python are also supported and has worked for in the past. I'm not sure which of these you can identify as key, but I would say that *BSD, OSX and Solaris should top the list. I also suggest Linux x86_64 of some kind, since it's becoming more and more widely used; I know we've got 2 or 3 people that normally respond to release tests that do. Nick
Re: please set up a mod_python core group
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Jorey Bump wrote: +1 here, but since the build process and typical MPM differs among platforms, could we see a list that this group represents? This group would not represent any platforms when acting in _this_ capacity. One of the group's responsibility would be to decide whether sufficient number of platforms were represented by tests done by anyone on this mailing list (including anyone from this group, of course). Grisha
Re: please set up a mod_python core group
Roy T. Fielding wrote: It looks like mod_python is making good progress and everyone is collaborating in the Apache way of testing and voting. That's great! Unfortunately, I have almost no insight into who these great people are that are doing the RM task and testing and voting and preparing for a next release. That's not so great, since it is my job (as VP of Apache HTTP Server Project) to be sure that the ASF knows all this work is being done in its name and so that all of the people doing it are appropriately recognized for their work. So, please, take a few moments to decide amongst yourselves who should have binding votes on mod_python (i.e., who has earned it), keeping in mind that you need at least three binding +1 votes in order to make any release at Apache, and send me a list of names and email addresses of those people so that I can properly record them in our records. I vote that Grisha gets all three votes. Benevolent dictatorship is the Python way, after all.
Re: please set up a mod_python core group
Hi, It's OK for me ! Regards, Nicolas 2006/1/19, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks Roy. Very timely, since 3.2.6 is (so far) going to be a final/stable release. I propose that for starters those people are: me (I'm also in the Apache HTTP Server PMC) Jim Gallacher Nicolas Lehuen Graham Dumpleton Just to clarify this a bit - I think a +1 on successful test for a particular OS/whatever combination from any of the above people is NOT the same as the binding +1 Roy's referring to. So when we're done collecting +1's which are just test results from subscribers of the list (and any subscriber can send a +1), then at least 3 of the above list need to agree that we have sufficient approval to go ahead with the release. Roy - could you confirm this makes sense? Grisha On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Roy T. Fielding wrote: It looks like mod_python is making good progress and everyone is collaborating in the Apache way of testing and voting. That's great! Unfortunately, I have almost no insight into who these great people are that are doing the RM task and testing and voting and preparing for a next release. That's not so great, since it is my job (as VP of Apache HTTP Server Project) to be sure that the ASF knows all this work is being done in its name and so that all of the people doing it are appropriately recognized for their work. So, please, take a few moments to decide amongst yourselves who should have binding votes on mod_python (i.e., who has earned it), keeping in mind that you need at least three binding +1 votes in order to make any release at Apache, and send me a list of names and email addresses of those people so that I can properly record them in our records. Cheers, Roy T. Fieldinghttp://roy.gbiv.com/ for the Apache HTTP Server PMC
