On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Joe Orton wrote:
Or if it does, -1 veto on either bumping the APR major version or
creating a branch or making toast with jam before Allan submits a patch
for review on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Okay, well, that means that for progress to be made, some form of patch
needs to get
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:36:25PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
To be clear, I'm perfectly happy with merging to trunk in Allen's changes
*once* completed and reviewed and moving trunk to 2.x if need be - but I
Nevertheless, the question at
man, how did I get so far behind on my email...
I'd like to see us get this into httpd 2.2 for the reasons
previously outlined and think we need to get the work underway
as quickly as possible to determine how extensive the changes
are going to be and how fast progress can be made.
First order of
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Allan Edwards wrote:
First order of business now that we are on SVN is to focus on
the APR changes that are needed. It's not clear to me though,
now that we have an APR 1.0 branch, is the trunk open for
API-breaking changes or do we need a separate branch for that work?
At 12:29 PM 11/24/2004, Allan Edwards wrote:
If we can make good progress towards a stable 64 bit APR 2.0 then
moving httpd 2.1/2.2 to it could make sense. The question is
whether there is enough feature freeze pressure to say that
64 bit does not warrant the wait...
Allan - your last patches
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Allan - your last patches were to try to -wedge- the current
API into httpd. Can you share the patch just to fix APR?
Then we can start to comprehend scope. NO CASTS - just the
correct declarations in the first place.
Since this is obviously
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Allan - your last patches were to try to -wedge- the current
API into httpd. Can you share the patch just to fix APR?
Then we can start to comprehend scope. NO CASTS - just the
correct declarations in the first place.
Since
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I guess I'm just arguing for a single branch that's the target of the
current development, as opposed to one 64 bit dev branch and one trunk
which holds other changes, thus requiring us to either invest constant
effort in merging changes from the
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:20 PM -0500 Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So sure, screw it. APR trunk is now 2.0-dev. Have fun.
Oh, please don't. We have *no* idea what the changes are or whether we'll
even ultimately accept them. Please branch Allen's changes off in a
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Oh, please don't. We have *no* idea what the changes are or whether we'll
even ultimately accept them. Please branch Allen's changes off in a
sandbox (cp trunk branches/64-bit-changes) - let him get a workable version
that we can then review,
--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:29 PM -0500 Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sick of all talk and no action. We tried this last year when we were
almost ready to branch APR 1.0 and all action on that front ceased
entirely for a YEAR. This time it's one or the other. I'll wait 24
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
To be clear, I'm perfectly happy with merging to trunk in Allen's changes
*once* completed and reviewed and moving trunk to 2.x if need be - but I
Nevertheless, the question at hand is what action to take RIGHT NOW.
Let's just wait for... with no
At 01:05 PM 11/24/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Allan - your last patches were to try to -wedge- the current
API into httpd. Can you share the patch just to fix APR?
Then we can start to comprehend scope. NO CASTS - just the
correct declarations
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 01:29 PM 11/24/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm sick of all talk and no action. We tried this last year when we were
almost ready to branch APR 1.0 and all action on that front ceased
entirely for a YEAR. This time it's
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 11:03 PM 11/19/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 8:01 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll offer compelling argument. Allen offered patches, which
Roy vetoed, to fix object sizes on 32/64/64 ILP bit platforms,
and
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold httpd 2.2 for that. -- justin
+1. Of
At 10:08 AM 11/22/2004, Bill Stoddard wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it
at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend
Bill Stoddard wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at
it at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold
At 11:08 AM 11/22/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by
httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should
become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at
it's normal pace,
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Yes - I understand that this means 1.x will never be used by
httpd. Version numbers are cheap. The APR project should
become used to this, if they are active, and httpd moves at
it's normal pace, it would be easy to go through APR 2.x, 3.x,
--On Monday, November 22, 2004 11:27 AM -0500 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I agree... Otherwise, we won't see many people move to
2.2 since 3rd party modules won't be available for it,
since module developers will know that within a short
amount of time, they'll need to redo their
At 12:17 PM 11/22/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I expect that as it stands right now most 2.0 modules will compile for 2.2
with very minor (if any) changes. If we 'fix' 64-bit issues now, then that
means that their modules are going to undergo massive changes.
This I will attest to;
--On Monday, November 22, 2004 1:08 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That *will* affect the 2.2 uptake rate because our third parties will
take a lot of time to get their modules 64-bit clean (if they do at all).
WHO CARES?!? That's on them. They can release bug fixes
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't believe that Allen would be able to complete his changes in a
reasonable timeframe. I'm tired of holding things up for a 'major'
rewrite that'll come any day now (TM). Sorry. I'd be willing to give
him a week or two to make the
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
So, my opinion is that we let Allen branch apr off now and let him go at it
at a measured pace, but we shouldn't intend to hold httpd 2.2 for that. --
justin
+1. Of course, I am assuming that
At 08:23 AM 11/20/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
This kind of brings up an idea that's been sloshing around between
that handful of neurons in my noggin: Some sort of API seed
program within httpd/apr where we put a little more effort in
getting the latest API versions out there.
The other
At 12:37 PM 11/20/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The other alternative is a 'fixed' subset of the httpd API that
we simply don't touch. At least so it's APR compat if not ABI
compat.
s/APR compat/API compat/
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 8:01 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll offer compelling argument. Allen offered patches, which
Roy vetoed, to fix object sizes on 32/64/64 ILP bit platforms,
and told Allen to go back and fix APR.
That is the right answer, branch APR 1.x,
At 11:03 PM 11/19/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, November 19, 2004 8:01 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll offer compelling argument. Allen offered patches, which
Roy vetoed, to fix object sizes on 32/64/64 ILP bit platforms,
and told Allen to go back and
29 matches
Mail list logo
