+1
This sounds like a good way forward.
> Am 09.02.2018 um 14:10 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>
>
>
>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 12:04 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>
>> Since you won't permit 2.6/3.0 to come into existence, we can presume this
>> was
> On Feb 9, 2018, at 12:04 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Since you won't permit 2.6/3.0 to come into existence, we can presume this
> was just a strawman?
>
That is a false statement. If enough people wanted 2.6/3.0 to come
into existence, it would have.
All I want
> On Dec 9, 2016, at 5:24 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>
> Instead, maybe we could backport all that stuff to 2.4, in a backwards
> compatible fashion. That is, basically backport trunk to 2.4. This
> would give us more runway to work on httpd-nextgen.
>
> That is very unrealistic, given th
On Dec 9, 2016 21:56, "Daniel Ruggeri" wrote:
On 12/9/2016 8:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Instead, maybe we could backport all that stuff to 2.4, in a backwards
> compatible fashion. That is, basically backport trunk to 2.4. This
> would give us more runway to work on httpd-nextgen.
>
> Thought
On 12/9/2016 8:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Instead, maybe we could backport all that stuff to 2.4, in a backwards
> compatible fashion. That is, basically backport trunk to 2.4. This
> would give us more runway to work on httpd-nextgen.
>
> Thoughts?
Considering a lot of the changes in trunk, I
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> It may be weird talking about httpd 2.6/3.0 when we are stuck
> in a holding pattern for 2.4.24, but actually it's not a bad
> idea.
>
> Right now, there are quite a few improvements in trunk that
> should *really* be
It may be weird talking about httpd 2.6/3.0 when we are stuck
in a holding pattern for 2.4.24, but actually it's not a bad
idea.
Right now, there are quite a few improvements in trunk that
should *really* be in a releasable version... Now we have some
options on how to proceed, but my
There's usually just not much to it. Here's what was last submitted:
Report from the Apache HTTP Server project [Eric Covener]
## Description:
The Apache HTTP Server Project develops and maintains an
open-source HTTP server for modern operating systems.
## Activity:
Overall project activi
On 5/30/2015 9:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> So I'll let Eric share what he submitted for May on our behalf, but here
> is the submitted/accepted/recorded report of Feb '15 - it's awfully high
> level, so I'm not sure that updating dev@ regularly with the contents
> offers a whole lot of ben
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Daniel Ruggeri
wrote:
> P.S.
> I'm not a Member or PMC... do I have access to the report that spurred
> the conversation?
>
Adding the context back to the thread...
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> FWIW: It was this month's PMC status r
> On 27 May 2015, at 13:54, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
> and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
> it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
Depends on what EOL means p
On 5/30/2015 1:47 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:> Thinking about this more,
what are the things preventing people from an
> _easy_ upgrade path configuration-wise? A lot of this conversation
> surrounded users and the impact of an upgrade to them. The interface for
> the users' to the server is the conf
On 5/28/2015 2:54 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
> Having to expend effort (e.g. re-design/update config and deployment)
to switch/update/upgrade to a new paradigm does not, IMO, mean that it's
not a solution for everyone. Anyone can take the time to implement and
automate the switch. Once that effort has be
On 05/28/2015 03:54 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
On 28 May 2015, at 14:30, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 28.05.2015 um 21:22 schrieb Rich Bowen:
On 05/27/2015 05:38 PM, olli hauer wrote:
- for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and
changing to
php-fpm was not for everyone a solutio
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:45 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On May 27, 2015 9:46 AM, "Jeff Trawick" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focu
> On 28 May 2015, at 14:30, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 28.05.2015 um 21:22 schrieb Rich Bowen:
>> On 05/27/2015 05:38 PM, olli hauer wrote:
>>> - for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and
>>> changing to
>>> php-fpm was not for everyone a solution.
>>
>> In my experience,
On May 27, 2015 9:46 AM, "Jeff Trawick" wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
>>> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
>>> and mod_h2 wi
More data points and history to ponder, with placeholders to reflect the
passage of time;
1998-06-06 Initial 1.3.0 Release
1999-03-24 Stable 1.3.6 Release (last major MMN bump)
2000
2001
2002-04-05 Initial 2.0.35 Release
2002-09-24 Stable 2.0.42 Release (last major MMN bump)
2003
2004
2005-12-01
Am 28.05.2015 um 21:22 schrieb Rich Bowen:
On 05/27/2015 05:38 PM, olli hauer wrote:
- for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and
changing to
php-fpm was not for everyone a solution.
In my experience, the only reason that php-fpm wasn't a solution for
everyone is that
On 05/27/2015 05:38 PM, olli hauer wrote:
- for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and changing to
php-fpm was not for everyone a solution.
In my experience, the only reason that php-fpm wasn't a solution for
everyone is that it was poorly documented. We could still st
Mageia:
Mageia 3 released with Apahe 2.4 in April 2013
Apache 2.2 (via Mageia 2) reached EOL in November 2013
>
> I propose we - where possible - add the missing bits that mod_h2 has to
> hack around, and then propose those changes for backport to v2.4 in the
> normal way.
>
> Given the amount of inertia minor versions of httpd have, it would be
> ideal if mod_h2 could be used in the httpd v2.4 timeframe,
l be
a 2.4 version of mod_h2 as well as a more significant
"merging" of mod_h2/trunk/2.6/3.0.
> On May 28, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 22:42 +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>> Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a role
2.4 as well... So there will be
>> a 2.4 version of mod_h2 as well as a more significant
>> "merging" of mod_h2/trunk/2.6/3.0.
>
> I propose we - where possible - add the missing bits that mod_h2 has to hack
> around, and then propose those changes for backport to v2.
e will be
> a 2.4 version of mod_h2 as well as a more significant
> "merging" of mod_h2/trunk/2.6/3.0.
>
>> On May 28, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 22:42 +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>> Not wanting to boast, but
ificant
> "merging" of mod_h2/trunk/2.6/3.0.
I propose we - where possible - add the missing bits that mod_h2 has to hack
around, and then propose those changes for backport to v2.4 in the normal way.
Given the amount of inertia minor versions of httpd have, it would be ideal if
mod
My thoughts are that we use mod_h2 as a guide to how to
"better" implement things in trunk, but also allow for
mod_h2 to also work w/ 2.4 as well... So there will be
a 2.4 version of mod_h2 as well as a more significant
"merging" of mod_h2/trunk/2.6/3.0.
> On May 28, 2015
tends to support the gut
feeling that mod_h2 might be better targeting 2.6/3.0 than 2.4.
We should be joining forces to address the issues you've
encountered, from minor tweaks to core to more fundamental issues
like bucket alloc across threads (or a suitable alternative).
Time for me to downl
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>
> Ubuntu - 14.04 LTS, and Debian 8 (Jessie) got the message, a year ago
> April.
>
> RHEL / CentOS 7 aren't even a year old yet.
>
> OpenSUSE 13.1 beat them all to the punch, back in Nov of '13. So that's
> the oldest distribution GA th
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 28/05/2015 03:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> [...] maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
> 2.4's time is here, if not already past. I'm simply trying
> to encourage us to work on the future and not "focus" on
> the past. No need
On 28/05/2015 07:38, olli hauer wrote:
> - for long time there was no working mod_php module for 2.4, and changing to
> php-fpm was not for everyone a solution.
huh?
I personally since dawn of the httpd/php love have always only ever used
mod_php and at no time did I have a a non usable ser
On 28/05/2015 03:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> No need to go off... 2.2 has been out for almost 10 years.
> 2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time. I'm simply
> *suggesting* (no BDFL posturing Mr. Rowe) that after 10
> years, maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
> 2.4's time is h
On 2015-05-27 17:34, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
>> on 2.4 and the next gen?
>
>
> Nope, we'll let the internet speak for itself -
>
> http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/ws-a
Here at AL quite a lot sticking with 2.2 because third-party modules which are
not available with 2.4. Like mod-perl etc.
> Op 27 mei 2015 om 22:42 heeft Stefan Eissing
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a role in
> motivating peopl
Not wanting to boast, but maybe mod_h2 for httpd 2.4 can play a role in
motivating people to migrate away from 2.2.
I have not looked into having it work on 2.2 and no interest in doing so. If we
get the ALPN support into 2.4.13, mod_h2 can be just "dropped in" to such a
server. And distros wi
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Tim Bannister
wrote:
> On 27 May 2015, at 18:26, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> > one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot
> tech that use 2.4
> >
> > basically, any time there is a how-to-FOO somewhere on the www that uses
> nginx for
On 27 May 2015, at 18:26, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot tech
> that use 2.4
>
> basically, any time there is a how-to-FOO somewhere on the www that uses
> nginx for the web server component, there needs to be a better how-to-FO
Your thought seems to be that we "EOL" 2.2 when the number of
2.2 deployments < the number of 2.4 ones. My thought is that
we "EOL" 2.2 in order to *hasten* that event, just like just
about every other open-source and non-open source software
project out there.
>
> one thing it means is having compelling stories involving the latest hot tech
> that use 2.4
>
> basically, any time there is a how-to-FOO somewhere on the www that uses
> nginx for the web server component, there needs to be a better how-to-FOO
> that uses httpd 2.4 ;) (I don't even thin
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> No need to go off...
Did I?
> 2.2 has been out for almost 10 years.
>
Irrelevant to the discussion...
> 2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time.
Specifically, http://svn.apache.org/r1243503
Generally unusable, the next several v
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > crazy and not-so-crazy ideas will speed the movement to 2.4 irrespective
> of distro schedules (not sure how much :) )
> >
>
> Here one: Since containers are the new hotness, how about being
> more Docker/Rocket/whatever friendly (what
Now that even stability-loving Debian is providing 2.4.x with full security
support, moving on from 2.2 seems to make sense.
--
Tim Bannister – is...@c8h10n4o2.org.uk
>
> crazy and not-so-crazy ideas will speed the movement to 2.4 irrespective of
> distro schedules (not sure how much :) )
>
Here one: Since containers are the new hotness, how about being
more Docker/Rocket/whatever friendly (whatever that means)? :)
Hope making this suggestion is OK and that
No need to go off... 2.2 has been out for almost 10 years.
2.4 for a bit over 3. That is a LONG time. I'm simply
*suggesting* (no BDFL posturing Mr. Rowe) that after 10
years, maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
2.4's time is here, if not already past. I'm simply trying
to encourage
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> My point is that if we EOL 2.2 (with some definition of "EOL")
> then people on 2.2 (or earlier) will have some *real* incentive
> to move off of 2.2 towards 2.4 (or later)...
>
> Basically, we need something to "kick" people off 2.2
> and
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > Focus your energy on anything you like.
> >
>
> Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :)
>
Please assume not :) ASF projects should still remain
scratch-your-own-itch(es).
Your message certainly had an 'adopt m
>
> Developers (committers or not):
>
> [Y] I am willing to help resolve security issues in the 2.2.x branch.
> [N] I am willing to help address non-security issues in the 2.2.x branch.
>
> PMC members:
>
> [Y] I am willing to test and vote on proposed 2.2.x releases.
Only security ones.
>
My point is that if we EOL 2.2 (with some definition of "EOL")
then people on 2.2 (or earlier) will have some *real* incentive
to move off of 2.2 towards 2.4 (or later)...
Basically, we need something to "kick" people off 2.2
and get them to 2.4. By stating that 2.2 will ONLY get
security related
>
> Focus your energy on anything you like.
>
Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :)
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
> on 2.4 and the next gen?
Nope, we'll let the internet speak for itself -
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/ws-apache/2
We are nowhere near close enough to the inflection po
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
>> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
>> and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
>> it would be nice
On 27 May 2015 at 17:42, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
>> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
>> and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
>> it would be nice to focus
The 2.2.x branch is still of interest to the product I work on.
So I am willing to devote effort towards its maintenance.
Thanks,
Mike
On 5/27/2015 7:46 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
What we need to know for the 2.2.x branch is basically this:
Developers (committers or not):
[Y] I am willin
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
>> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
>> and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
>> it would be nice
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
> and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
> it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
>
People here focus their
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:55 AM Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
> and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
> it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
>
I think it's an accurate
No issue for me.
How many time would bug/security fixes would still be backported (from
when we decide so)?
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
> and mod_h2 will drive the
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
58 matches
Mail list logo
