Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.58-rc3 as httpd-2.4.58

FYI, the https://httpd.apache.org front page still lists 2.4.57 as the latest version. - David On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 5:09 PM Stefan Eissing via dev wrote: > With 8 +1 votes and no counters, this seems a go. If nothing else comes > up, I'll do the release tomorrow noonish. > > Thanks all for

Re: Revisit Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 19 Apr 2018, at 5:55 PM, David Zuelke <dzue...@salesforce.com> wrote: > >> I hate to break this to you, and I do not want to discredit the >> amazing work all the contributors

Re: Revisit Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:07 PM, Mark Blackman <m...@exonetric.com> wrote: > > >> On 19 Apr 2018, at 21:35, David Zuelke <dzue...@salesforce.com> wrote: >> >> I'm not saying no directives should ever be added in point releases or >> anything, but the con

Re: Start using RCs (Was: Re: So... when should we do 2.4.34? [WAS: Re: Revisit Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)])

The main difference is that you have a release branch in which fixes to bugs or regressions found during 2.4.x RCs can be made, while work on 2.4.(x+1) can continue in the main 2.4 branch. Another benefit is that people who do automated builds (e.g. me) can grep for "RC" in the version number and

Re: Revisit Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > >> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:55 AM, David Zuelke <dzue...@salesforce.com> wrote: >> >> >> I hate to break this to you, and I do not want to discredit the >> amazing work al

Re: Start using RCs (Was: Re: So... when should we do 2.4.34? [WAS: Re: Revisit Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)])

Yup, that's exactly it. Have a release branch, iterate there, and in the meantime, work in the version series branch can continue. That brings one huge benefit over the current model already: no freezes necessary, no potential additional breaks after a "burned" version. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at

Re: Revisit Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > >> Am 17.04.2018 um 19:18 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : >> >>> The architecture of v2.4 has been very stable, the need for breaking >>> changes has been largely non existent, and the focus

Re: Revisit Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)

t;froze" to upon first release, and that's it. Debian and Ubuntu, for instance, just pick the latest PHP that's released at the time the freeze for a version happens, and that's it. >>> On Apr 13, 2018, at 2:28 PM, David Zuelke <dzue...@salesforc

Re: Revisit Versioning? (Was: 2.4.3x regression w/SSL vhost configs)

Remember the thread I started on that quite a while ago? ;) IMO: - x.y.0 for new features - x.y.z for bugfixes only - stop the endless backporting - make x.y.0 releases more often - x.y.0 goes through alpha, beta, RC phases - x.y.z goes through RC phases That's how PHP has been doing it for a

Re: 2.4.27

You need to use SetHandler. You can't use rewrites with ProxyPass because of the order of evaluation. Example config: Define php-fpm unix:/tmp/php-fpm.sock|fcgi://php-fpm # make sure the proxy is registered with the unix socket; we can then use just "fcgi://php-fpm" in proxy and rewrites

Re: 2.4.27

On 10. Jul 2017, at 16:04, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 06.07.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Jacob Champion: >> Administrators using prefork who would like to switch to HTTP/2 in the >> future need to understand the limitations of the prefork architecture they >> have selected.

Re: Summary: Broken FastCGI with httpd

On 26.01.2017, at 18:03, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > As of HEAD on trunk, configs with the below seem to > work as expected: > > AddType application/x-php7-fpm .php > Action application/x-php7-fpm /fpm virtual > >SetHandler proxy:fcgi://localhost:9001 > > >

Re: Summary: Broken FastCGI with httpd

On 26.01.2017, at 06:16, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:12 PM, David Zuelke <d...@heroku.com> wrote: >>> AddType application/x-php7-fpm .php >>> Action application/x-php7-fpm /php7-fpm virtual >>>

Re: Reset out x.minor.z definition of 'minor' at httpd?

On 20.01.2017, at 21:37, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > On 20 Jan 2017, at 7:47 PM, David Zuelke <d...@heroku.com> wrote: > >> I'd actually like to question the whole practice of porting features back to >> older branches. I think that's the

Re: Summary: Broken FastCGI with httpd

On 25.01.2017, at 20:12, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Can you provide to me a pgp-fpm.conf that you use... Basically, > I want to create an environ that exactly uses the > > AddType application/x-php7-fpm .php > Action application/x-php7-fpm /php7-fpm virtual > >

Re: Summary: Broken FastCGI with httpd

On 24.01.2017, at 01:24, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > >> On Jan 23, 2017, at 4:35 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> >> >> What situations lead to CONTENT_TYPE being set to a PATH_INFO delimiter? I'm >> not sure what this is supposed to do. >> > > The *idea*

Re: Reset out x.minor.z definition of 'minor' at httpd?

> On 20.01.2017, at 15:34, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:12 PM, David Zuelke <d...@heroku.com> wrote: >> I don't know any framework/language/library out there that handles it that >> strictly. Nginx, or Ruby, o

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

On 20.01.2017, at 02:00, Eric Covener wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> We branch off from the 2.4.25 tag. This is our low-risk 2.4.25.x patch line. >> There are no new features or large code changes to this branch,

Re: Reset out x.minor.z definition of 'minor' at httpd?

I don't know any framework/language/library out there that handles it that strictly. Nginx, or Ruby, or PHP, or whatever... From x.y.z to x.y.z+1, retain full compatibility. From x.y.z to x.y+1.0, keep external API compatibility, break ABI if needed, break internal API if absolutely needed

Re: Alternate versioning proposal: patch line releases

Please no .micro releases. Most of the world is now trying to stick to http://semver.org principles. Why not just keep 2.4 for maintenance, and start working on 2.6 immediately? Or 2.5? I honestly think that the current "odd numbers are unstable" approach is not helpful with this whole

Re: Summary: Broken FastCGI with httpd

On 19.01.2017, at 19:00, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 01/18/2017 01:00 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> After all, it's easier for the FCGI server to know the SCRIPT_NAME >> than httpd to "guess"... > > I think the recent breakage calls this assumption into question. The server

Re: Summary: Broken FastCGI with httpd

> On 17.01.2017, at 23:16, Jacob Champion wrote: > > (This conversation is currently spread over Bugzilla, IRC, GitHub, and > php-internals. Here's my attempt at summarizing it for all of you. If you > have no interest in CGI or FastCGI, stop reading now.) Thanks for

Re: Post 2.4.25

On 31 Dec 2016, at 00:09, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > * the longer 2.6/3.0 takes the more half-baked/half-finished stuff > accumulates > that needs to be fixed before a release. > > But I don't have any ideas how to resolve this. Did you see my "A new release process?" thread?

A new release process?

Hi everyone, Given the several current threads where there's arguing about what and how and when to release features, backported or not, I'd like to offer a tale of a project that was, more or less, in the same dire spot, and pulled itself out of that misery with great success and universal

Re: 2.4.24 soon?

On 21.07.2016, at 16:27, Eric Covener wrote: > We have httpoxy as well as a rewrite+fastcgi regression in the queue. > Jim, do you have a near-term release in you we can plan around? Just to *bump* this one up... ;) David

Re: 2.4.18?

On 18.11.2015, at 08:11, Noel Butler wrote: > absolutely not! I personally only update phpmyadmin once, on initial major > release, because I (like many others) were so of updating it every few days . > You obviously dont manage very many public facing servers then, I

Re: mod_proxy: PHP SCRIPT_FILENAME (PHP-FPM using UDS) and Apache documentation

You should not append the trailing slash. REQUEST_URI gets appended, hence the double slash. On 10.09.2014, at 10:26, Martynas Bendorius marty...@martynas.it wrote: Yes, I've tried their latest versions from GIT (with the #65641 fix (PHP-FPM incorrectly defines the SCRIPT_NAME variable when

Re: FYI: Looking for a release of 2.4.x soonish

UDS have been supported since 2.4.8, see https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101#c21 On 08.07.2014, at 11:22, Yonah Russ yonah.r...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Is there any update on this? What is the status of https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54101#c1 ? Will

Backport SetHandler for reverse proxies to 2.4.x?

Hi all, is there any chance to get http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1573626 merged into 2.4.x as well, for 2.4.10? Would be pretty handy for a lot of people; it's a lot easier to use than rewrites or ProxyPass(Match) directives. David