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

2017-10-18 Thread William A Rowe Jr 
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.

Good work, you helped established a foundation with two simple
premises, that no code changes can happen without a group
consensus, while no individual can ever block a release, that vote
is not subject to veto; simple majority.

It's only taken you 18 years to single-handedly undo that? Surely
you know there is no such thing as "Your Esteemed" veto. That
was actually the basis for my -0 on 2.4.28, I determined it was an
unwise release (little did we know), but left it at that... any -1 was
going to have no effect whatsoever unless the RM agreed it was
an unwise tag.

2.5.0-[alpha|beta] serves a number of very useful purposes;

  * Is trunk buildable by most? Is it stable? Is it a broken playground
of cruft that is not releasable?

  * By my count, four rather twisted backports are proposed to 2.4.x
none of which have seen any testing whatsoever. Bold suggestion
that these should be pushed on users in the current "maintenance"
branch that users are relying on. An alpha/beta of these features
pushes them to the forefront and may win huge acceptance or
specific objections.

  * Several major Linux distributions are approaching a glide path
towards 2018 final decisions on httpd reversioning; Ubuntu LTS
and RHEL 9 are likely to be locked in by year end for the next
quarter decade. Our lack of momentum spells zero chance to
move toward fixes of longstanding deficiencies.

  * Big news splash on major ssl enhancements that are unreleased.
In theory, the suggestion to alpha the code would have collided
with a news release on the subject in a good way (not withstanding
the late review of your specific issue and appreciation that it was
a much broader issue with invalid C grammar AC tests.)

  * What needs to come next? What third party modules are already
broken? What changes are third party developers clamoring for?
Oh, and we don't ship snapshots, by definition. So, no alpha/beta
cycle results in a lose lose proposition for our consumers.

But with your dismissive attitude, we might as well presume, since
you are rewriting the project and foundation ruleset, that in your
esteemed wisdom, httpd will no longer evolve, so any suggestion
that httpd could be better than it is today is lost on this mailing list
under your esteemed supervision and new rulemaking.

Please reconsider my rational for submitting this suggestion, and
rethink your basis for opposing it.

Cheers,

Bill

Re: svn commit: r1812393 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x: ./ STATUS modules/http2/ modules/http2/config2.m4

2017-10-18 Thread William A Rowe Jr 
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET <
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> just for my own curiosity: why do we prefer 32 bits libs?
>

It is not a value judgement, we simply consume lib/pkginfo before
lib64/pkginfo in this patch. We didn't even look at lib64/pkginfo
before, so this is not a regression.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.29 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Petr Gajdos 
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 03:00:36PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd
> version 2.4.29 can be found at the usual place:
> 
>   http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> 
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.29 GA.
> 
> [ ] +1: Good to go
> [ ] +0: meh
> [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.

+1 here
https://build.opensuse.org/package/live_build_log/Apache:Test/apache-test/Apache_Tumbleweed/x86_64

Petr

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.29 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Noel Butler 
On 18/10/2017 05:00, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd
> version 2.4.29 can be found at the usual place:
> 
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> 
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.29 GA.
> 
> [ ] +1: Good to go
> [ ] +0: meh
> [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
> 
> Vote will last the normal 72 hrs.
> 
> NOTE: The *-deps are only there for convenience.
> 
> Thx!

+1 all good on slackware > 13.x

-- 
Kind Regards, 

Noel Butler 

This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally 
privileged
information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright
protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or
reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written
authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments,
immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not
waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only
PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary
formatted documents 

 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.adobe.com/
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.29 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Stefan Eissing 
And a +1 report from Bernard Spil , who just built with 
libressl on debian.

> Am 18.10.2017 um 11:06 schrieb Stefan Eissing :
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 17.10.2017 um 21:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>> 
>> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd
>> version 2.4.29 can be found at the usual place:
>> 
>>  http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>> 
>> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.29 GA.
>> 
>> [ ] +1: Good to go
>> [ ] +0: meh
>> [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
>> 
>> Vote will last the normal 72 hrs.
>> 
>> NOTE: The *-deps are only there for convenience.
>> 
>> Thx!
> 
> +1 on macOS 10.13
> 
> And lots, lots of thanks for RMing, Jim!
> 
> Cheers, Stefan 
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.29 as GA

2017-10-18 Thread Stefan Eissing 


> Am 17.10.2017 um 21:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
> 
> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd
> version 2.4.29 can be found at the usual place:
> 
>   http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
> 
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.29 GA.
> 
> [ ] +1: Good to go
> [ ] +0: meh
> [ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
> 
> Vote will last the normal 72 hrs.
> 
> NOTE: The *-deps are only there for convenience.
> 
> Thx!

+1 on macOS 10.13

And lots, lots of thanks for RMing, Jim!

Cheers, Stefan