Re: Time for 2.4.30? (Was: Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!)

2018-02-14 Thread William A Rowe Jr
And perhaps sufficient testing of the end result? The number of exceptions at the moment bode ill for a stable long term release. Feature dumps always introduce instability. Maybe a bug fix only freeze for a short period to stabilize that pile of code? On Feb 14, 2018 06:41, "Jim Jagielski"

Re: Time for 2.4.30? (Was: Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!)

2018-02-14 Thread Graham Leggett
On 14 Feb 2018, at 2:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Yes... there are/were a few backports which are/were lacking > a single vote… We’re down to these ones left: +1: jim, minfrin +1: jailletc36, minfrin +1: minfrin Regards, Graham — smime.p7s Description:

Re: Time for 2.4.30? (Was: Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!)

2018-02-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
Yes... there are/were a few backports which are/were lacking a single vote... > On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:23 PM, Nic Jansma wrote: > > Are there still plans to push for a 2.4.30 soon? There's a couple bug fixes > in it that I'd love to have in the official builds! > > Thanks, > >

Re: Time for 2.4.30? (Was: Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!)

2018-02-13 Thread Nic Jansma
Are there still plans to push for a 2.4.30 soon?  There's a couple bug fixes in it that I'd love to have in the official builds! Thanks, - Nic On 2018/01/04 12:43:12, Jim Jagielski wrote: > As we get settled into the new year, it seems a good time> > to think about a 2.4.30

Re: Time for 2.4.30? (Was: Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!)

2018-01-04 Thread Stefan Eissing
+1 of course > Am 04.01.2018 um 13:43 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > As we get settled into the new year, it seems a good time > to think about a 2.4.30 release in the coming week or > so. Lots of good stuff currently in 2.4.30-dev and even > more good stuff in STATUS awaiting a

Time for 2.4.30? (Was: Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!)

2018-01-04 Thread Jim Jagielski
As we get settled into the new year, it seems a good time to think about a 2.4.30 release in the coming week or so. Lots of good stuff currently in 2.4.30-dev and even more good stuff in STATUS awaiting a single vote! Let's see if we can clean-up STATUS, get 2.4.30-dev into fantastic shape, and

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Dec 14, 2017, at 11:31 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > It is good to see you share my concern about unreleased code for > a change. I share it all the time... That's why I work on getting back ports into 2.4.x as diligently as I do.

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-14 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Aye, I had originally added the support for PROXY in remoteip since... > well... it's used to extract remote IP info. The funny part is that I had > committed my additions within an hour of the third party code being

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-14 Thread Jim Jagielski
My own 2c is that I don't really care that much *where* the functionality exists, just that we actually ship it. It's been almost a year since I reached out to the orig author and asked about moving/donating the code to the ASF, and they readily agreed. To have it just sit around, un-released, for

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
Aye, I had originally added the support for PROXY in remoteip since... well... it's used to extract remote IP info. The funny part is that I had committed my additions within an hour of the third party code being donated and incorporated without realizing it... so I removed my changes and added

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
I was wrong about OtherBill suggesting it be in mod_remoteip... it was actually Daniel: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b79ff329bb6163bb63d1284696360385313a402a6a70604459604e48@%3Cdev.httpd.apache.org%3E

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
Hmmm https://lists.apache.org/list.html?c...@httpd.apache.org:lte=24M:proxyprotocol Note when 1st committed. > On Dec 13, 2017, at 7:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Wed, Dec

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Jordan Gigov wrote: >> >> On 12 December 2017 at 11:32, Stefan Eissing

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 13 Dec 2017, at 2:22 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> Or, it is bad form to introduce features and then force some >> config-changes on users after the 'experimental' phase, which >> isn't even

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread Graham Leggett
On 13 Dec 2017, at 2:22 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Or, it is bad form to introduce features and then force some > config-changes on users after the 'experimental' phase, which > isn't even proposed, in this case. > > We want to be pretty strict about config changes, and

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > Personally, I think it is bad form to hold off on a back port > for a feature that only 1 person really, really "demanded" > and then not do anything to add that functionality in. > > So I say YES, we SHOULD vote on

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Jordan Gigov wrote: > > On 12 December 2017 at 11:32, Stefan Eissing > wrote: >> >> Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:45 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: >> Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas 2.4 release for the >> people on this planet, the backports in

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 1:02 AM, Jordan Gigov wrote: > > On 12 December 2017 at 11:32, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas 2.4 release for the > people on this

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-13 Thread William A Rowe Jr
I tend to agree that proxy, being a 'lower level' protocol, aught to represent before remoteip presents itself. Overloading the module seemed like a headache. That said, as the author of remoteip, I consider my opinions highly biased and untrusted by me myself, so you all sort that out :) Thanks

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-12 Thread Jordan Gigov
On 12 December 2017 at 11:32, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas 2.4 release for the > people on this planet, the backports in STATUS need your attention: > > B2: mod_remoteip: Add PROXY protocol support > - needs 1 more

Re: 2.4.x STATUS needs you!

2017-12-12 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Fellow Apache developers: if we want to make an X-mas 2.4 release for the > people on this planet, the backports in STATUS need your attention: > > B2: mod_remoteip: Add PROXY protocol support > - needs 1