Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > FTR: I refuse any discussion where people, already in the initial > statements, discuss each others merit and downfalls and whatnot. > > If you want to talk about technical stuff and/or propose a project plan,

Re: Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?}today]

wrong link where to clean up: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/?sortby=date On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at

Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?}today]

Can someone clean up the not needed anymore backports/branches at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/?sortby=date On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:12, Stefan Eissing wrote: FTR: I refuse any discussion where people, already in the initial statements, discuss each others merit

Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today]

FTR: I refuse any discussion where people, already in the initial statements, discuss each others merit and downfalls and whatnot. If you want to talk about technical stuff and/or propose a project plan, start a new thread without all that destructive crap I will not waste any more time than

Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today]

Jim, you have very vocally and hostility reacted to *all* discussion of improving the release process at the httpd project. The project bylaws are clear, no individual PMC member may block a release (the PMC chair may, owing to the fact that they alone represent the board as the appointed VP,

Re: Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today]

The issue obviously isn't in the *tagging*. It is the unknown aspect of what is expected AFTER the tagging. I see the tagging as simply a mechanism to force action upon the PMC to go down a route which the PMC has not decided, from what I can tell, to go down. Maybe I'm wrong. But your reply

Why tag 2.5.0? [Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Why lump 2.5.0 into all this? > > There is no rational reason to force connect 2.4.29 and 2.5.0 > > Tag 2.4.29 and leave 2.5.0 alone until people discuss it. Until then > I will veto any foolishness about 2.5.0-whatever.

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

I'd say we use STATUS to keep track

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > Am 16.10.2017 um 12:31 schrieb Joe Orton: >> >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:51:54AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> The long and short is that under maintainer mode, we cannot >>> expect AC_CHECK_LIB to being

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

Am 16.10.2017 um 12:31 schrieb Joe Orton: On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:51:54AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: The long and short is that under maintainer mode, we cannot expect AC_CHECK_LIB to being correct any longer, because the combination of -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes means that any and all

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:51:54AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > The long and short is that under maintainer mode, we cannot > expect AC_CHECK_LIB to being correct any longer, because > the combination of -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes means > that any and all functions looked for/checked for

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > >> Am 15.10.2017 um 17:52 schrieb Rainer Jung : >> >> Nevertheless I would still say that adding "-Wno-error=strict-prototypes" >> for any clang and gcc version that supports it would

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

I'd be +1 on setting -Wno-error=strict-prototypes unconditionally > On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: > > Am 15.10.2017 um 16:25 schrieb Yann Ylavic: >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: >>> >>> Why is this

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

> Am 15.10.2017 um 17:52 schrieb Rainer Jung : > > Am 15.10.2017 um 16:25 schrieb Yann Ylavic: >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: >>> >>> Why is this happening now? The "-Werror" was backported last December in >>>

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

Your analysis matches mine, but we still have the open concern of your VS import quirks around the expat library name. Ideas? On Oct 15, 2017 03:20, "Steffen" wrote: > In Apache.dsw is now project xml removed, it is not building out of the > box with current released

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

I've been watching the maintainer mode deliberations on dev@apr with great interest. I'm also keenly aware of Steffen's concerns, especially since dropping pcre didn't cause nearly this much trouble. If we are all on the same page, I'll continue to work through the expat headache on Monday and

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

Am 15.10.2017 um 16:25 schrieb Yann Ylavic: On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: Why is this happening now? The "-Werror" was backported last December in r1772330, which was a backport of r1702948 from trunk (May 2015). Maybe people haven't used

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > > Why is this happening now? The "-Werror" was backported last December in > r1772330, which was a backport of r1702948 from trunk (May 2015). Maybe > people haven't used maintainer mode since then? During the

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

Hi Jim, Am 13.10.2017 um 17:51 schrieb Jim Jagielski: Let's recall what is really happening... In maintainer mode, the build system sets -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes. This means that functions which lack strict prototypes will "fail". Now note that AC_CHECK_LIB does not worry about

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

In Apache.dsw is now project xml removed, it is not building out of the box with current released apr-util. With coming apr-util 1.6.1 it should be fine. On Friday 13/10/2017 at 15:20, William A Rowe Jr wrote: Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch? Has

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

OtherBill, I see that 2.4.29 wasn't tagged. Are you still planning on doing so? I can T on Monday if you like.

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

Thank you for this summary! On Oct 13, 2017 10:51, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > Let's recall what is really happening... > > In maintainer mode, the build system sets -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes. > This means that functions which lack strict prototypes will "fail". > > Now

AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

Let's recall what is really happening... In maintainer mode, the build system sets -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes. This means that functions which lack strict prototypes will "fail". Now note that AC_CHECK_LIB does not worry about generating function calls w/ prototypes, so, for example, when

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

Am 13.10.2017 um 17:05 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: On Oct 13, 2017 08:41, "Stefan Eissing" > wrote: > Am 13.10.2017 um 15:19 schrieb William A Rowe Jr >: > >

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

On Oct 13, 2017 08:41, "Stefan Eissing" wrote: > Am 13.10.2017 um 15:19 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch? Not any more than in previous releases, I think. > Has anyone else

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

> Am 13.10.2017 um 15:19 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch? Not any more than in previous releases, I think. > Has anyone else looked at Jim's proposed fixes for xcode 9 building > under maintainer mode? A

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

Why lump 2.5.0 into all this? There is no rational reason to force connect 2.4.29 and 2.5.0 Tag 2.4.29 and leave 2.5.0 alone until people discuss it. Until then I will veto any foolishness about 2.5.0-whatever. > On Oct 13, 2017, at 9:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >

Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch? Has anyone else looked at Jim's proposed fixes for xcode 9 building under maintainer mode? A couple-line quick fix to configure.in, that anyone on OS/X should be able to validate in minutes. The same fix is already present on