Re: build trunk in windows

[Yann Ylavic]

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 2:54 PM jean-frederic clere  wrote:
>
> On 4/24/23 18:25, Steffen wrote:
> > There is a howto Building Apache and dependencies using CMake at
> >
> > https://www.apachelounge.com/viewtopic.php?t=8609
> > 
> >
> >
>
> I ended fixing include/http_protocol.h see patch, did I miss something?

Looks like ap_h1_response_out_filter() is declared in
"include/mod_core.h" already, but without AP_CORE_DECLARE_NONSTD().
Not sure if we should remove the AP_CORE_DECLARE_NONSTD() in
"modules/http/http_filters.c" (where it's implemented) or add it in
the declaration. For instance ap_http_outerror_filter() has no
AP_CORE_DECLARE_NONSTD() anywhere..

Regards;
Yann.

Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))

[Stefan Eissing via dev]

> Am 03.05.2023 um 23:03 schrieb Christophe JAILLET 
> :
> 
> Le 03/05/2023 à 21:12, Eric Covener a écrit :
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. 
>>> We have some closer ties to Subversion by some
>>>   overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat 
>>> our very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
>>>   We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of 
>>> our development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
>>>   Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should 
>>> check if all of the current active committers are fine
>>>   using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we 
>>> use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
>>>   Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if 
>>> active committers would have issues with Github.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1.
>>> 
>>> I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. 
>>> Github supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use 
>>> what they prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with.
>>> 
>>> While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners 
>>> of Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, 
>>> goals change at any time and without warning.
>> Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you
>> "vote" wise about moving to read/write Git.
>> Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019
>> since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to
>> it.
> 
> svn or git both fit my needs.
> 
> git would be slightly easier for me because of the feature to easily commit 
> only parts of changes of files (I think that some svn clients also support 
> it, but not the one I use)
> 
> github is great because it can be used for code review without the need to 
> commit something. A patch can be discussed, updated, improved, ... cleanly 
> before being merged. That's a great feature IMHO.
> 
> git/github would also make the project more attractive for others 
> contributions I think.
> 
> So, even if I personality really don't care for myself, I would +1 the sake 
> of the project.

Many +1s

> 
> Just my 2c,
> 
> CJ

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Stefan Eissing via dev]

> Am 04.05.2023 um 10:34 schrieb Ruediger Pluem :
> 
> This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write repository 
> from Subversion to Git.
> This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer available 
> via svn.apache.org. It
> will be available via Git at 
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git and 
> https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
> Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
> https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients
> 
> 
> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
> features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't want 
> to work with Github and I will only work with
> what gitbox.apache.org offers.
> [ ]: Leave everything as is.
> 

Thanks for calling this vote.

> [x]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
> features of Github (for now Actions and PR).

cheers, 
Stefan

Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))

[Joe Orton]

On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 02:31:35PM -0500, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> I am +1 on moving. I do not have any particular love for git or svn on their
> own, and I realize that the proposed change does make outside contributions
> and certain workflows easier.

+1 for the same reasons here. Might be better to call a formal VOTE 
thread on this with a clearer Subject.

[VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Ruediger Pluem]

This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write repository from 
Subversion to Git.
This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer available 
via svn.apache.org. It
will be available via Git at https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git 
and https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients


[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't want to 
work with Github and I will only work with
 what gitbox.apache.org offers.
[ ]: Leave everything as is.


Regards

Rüdiger

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Joe Orton]

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 10:34:32AM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write repository 
> from Subversion to Git.
> This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer available 
> via svn.apache.org. It
> will be available via Git at 
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git and 
> https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
> Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
> https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients
> 
> 
> [X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
> features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't want 
> to work with Github and I will only work with
>  what gitbox.apache.org offers.
> [ ]: Leave everything as is.

Thanks for calling the vote again.

Regards, Joe

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Emmanuel Dreyfus]

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 10:34:32AM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
> features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't want 
> to work with Github and I will only work with
>  what gitbox.apache.org offers.
> [X]: Leave everything as is.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Yann Ylavic]

On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:34 AM Ruediger Pluem  wrote:
>
> This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write repository 
> from Subversion to Git.
> This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer available 
> via svn.apache.org. It
> will be available via Git at 
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git and 
> https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
> Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
> https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients
>

[X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and
leverage the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).

Regards;
Yann.

Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))

[Nilgün Belma Bugüner]

4.05.2023 10:25 tarihinde Stefan Eissing via dev yazdı:



Am 03.05.2023 um 23:03 schrieb Christophe JAILLET 
:

Le 03/05/2023 à 21:12, Eric Covener a écrit :

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev
 wrote:

On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem  wrote:

2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We 
have some closer ties to Subversion by some
   overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our 
very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
   We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of our 
development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
   Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check 
if all of the current active committers are fine
   using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we 
use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
   Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if 
active committers would have issues with Github.


+1.

I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. Github 
supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use what they 
prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with.

While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners of 
Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, goals 
change at any time and without warning.

Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you
"vote" wise about moving to read/write Git.
Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019
since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to
it.

svn or git both fit my needs.

git would be slightly easier for me because of the feature to easily commit 
only parts of changes of files (I think that some svn clients also support it, 
but not the one I use)

github is great because it can be used for code review without the need to 
commit something. A patch can be discussed, updated, improved, ... cleanly 
before being merged. That's a great feature IMHO.

git/github would also make the project more attractive for others contributions 
I think.

So, even if I personality really don't care for myself, I would +1 the sake of 
the project.

Many +1s


Just my 2c,

CJ


Svn to git +1

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[giovanni]

On 5/4/23 10:34, Ruediger Pluem wrote:

This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write repository from 
Subversion to Git.
This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer available 
via svn.apache.org. It
will be available via Git at https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git 
and https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients


[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't want to 
work with Github and I will only work with
  what gitbox.apache.org offers.
[ ]: Leave everything as is.


[X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
features of Github (for now Actions and PR).

 Thanks for calling the vote
   Giovanni


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))

[giovanni]

On 5/3/23 23:03, Christophe JAILLET wrote:

Le 03/05/2023 à 21:12, Eric Covener a écrit :

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Graham Leggett via dev
 wrote:


On 25 Apr 2023, at 07:45, Ruediger Pluem  wrote:

2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me. We 
have some closer ties to Subversion by some
   overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat our 
very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
   We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another of our 
development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
   Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should check 
if all of the current active committers are fine
   using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when we 
use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
   Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if 
active committers would have issues with Github.


+1.

I've always found the fight about “must be git” to be really tedious. Github 
supports both git and svn to this day, and people are free to use what they 
prefer by using the interface they are most familiar with.

While Github is popular today, this is only because the goals of the owners of 
Github are presently aligned with our goals. As Twitter has taught us, goals 
change at any time and without warning.


Hi Graham -- it's a little unclear to me where this would put you
"vote" wise about moving to read/write Git.

Anyone else with a stake have an opinion? It has been since about 2019
since we last discussed it here, I am hoping people have warmed up to
it.



svn or git both fit my needs.

git would be slightly easier for me because of the feature to easily commit 
only parts of changes of files (I think that some svn clients also support it, 
but not the one I use)

github is great because it can be used for code review without the need to 
commit something. A patch can be discussed, updated, improved, ... cleanly 
before being merged. That's a great feature IMHO.

git/github would also make the project more attractive for others contributions 
I think.

So, even if I personality really don't care for myself, I would +1 the sake of 
the project.


+1 for me to switch to git, code review will be easier.
Just a question, how will security diffs be managed in Github ?
 Giovanni



Just my 2c,

CJ




OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: ci jobs

[Yann Ylavic]

On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 10:43 AM Stefan Eissing via dev
 wrote:
>
> FYI, github workflows: mod_http2 and mod_tls CI jobs are re-enabled in trunk 
> and 2.4.x

Great, thanks Stefan!

Regards;
Yann.

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Daniel Gruno]

On 2023-05-04 07:48, Eric Covener wrote:

[x]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and
leverage the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).



[x]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and
 leverage the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Eric Covener]

[x]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and
leverage the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).

Re: svn commit: r1909606 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/generators/mod_status.c

[Rainer Jung]

Oups and thanks!

Am 04.05.23 um 12:30 schrieb yla...@apache.org:

Author: ylavic
Date: Thu May  4 10:30:25 2023
New Revision: 1909606

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1909606=rev
Log:
Follow up to r1909429: Fix scope/block syntax.

Modified:
 httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/generators/mod_status.c

Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/generators/mod_status.c
URL: 
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/generators/mod_status.c?rev=1909606=1909605=1909606=diff
==
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/generators/mod_status.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/generators/mod_status.c Thu May  4 10:30:25 2023
@@ -348,9 +348,9 @@ static int status_handler(request_rec *r
  else if (res != SERVER_DEAD &&
   res != SERVER_STARTING &&
   res != SERVER_IDLE_KILL) {
-if (res == SERVER_GRACEFUL)
+if (res == SERVER_GRACEFUL) {
  graceful++;
-if (is_async) {
+if (is_async)
  thread_graceful_buffer[i]++;
  } else {
  busy++;

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Ivan Zhakov]

On 2023/05/04 08:34:32 Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write repository 
> from Subversion to Git.
> This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer available 
> via svn.apache.org. It
> will be available via Git at 
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git and 
> https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
> Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
> https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients
> 
Quoting provided link:
[[[
Subversion support will be removed from GitHub on January 8, 2024
]]]

> 
> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
> features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't want 
> to work with Github and I will only work with
>  what gitbox.apache.org offers.
> [ ]: Leave everything as is.
> 

[X]: Leave everything as is.

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Christophe JAILLET]

Le 04/05/2023 à 10:34, Ruediger Pluem a écrit :

This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write repository from 
Subversion to Git.
This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer available 
via svn.apache.org. It
will be available via Git at https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git 
and https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients


[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't want to 
work with Github and I will only work with
  what gitbox.apache.org offers.
[ ]: Leave everything as is.


Regards

Rüdiger



[X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage 
the features of Github (for now Actions and PR).


CJ

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Rainer Jung]

Am 04.05.23 um 10:34 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:

This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write repository from 
Subversion to Git.
This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer available 
via svn.apache.org. It
will be available via Git at https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git 
and https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients


[X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't want to 
work with Github and I will only work with
  what gitbox.apache.org offers.
[ ]: Leave everything as is.


Thanks and regards,

Rainer

Re: ci vs PR approvals? (was: [apache/httpd] Fix a possible NULL pointer dereference in hook_uri2file (PR #355))

[Greg Stein]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 1:45 AM Ruediger Pluem  wrote:
>...

> 2. Switching from Subversion to Git is mostly an emotional problem for me.
> We have some closer ties to Subversion by some
>overlaps in the community and via mod_dav_svn we kind of partially eat
> our very own dogfood here by using Subversion.
>We wouldn't do that any longer with Git. Plus it would switch another
> of our development tools from an Apache license to GPL.
>Apart from technical aspects that this change would create we should
> check if all of the current active committers are fine
>using Github. While people could use Gitbox and thus avoid Github when
> we use Git I would like us to leverage the features of
>Github when we would do this switch and I think this cannot be done if
> active committers would have issues with Github.
>

Today 0% of httpd developers can use those features of GitHub. Switching
allows (say:) 90% of our developers, and potentially some downstream
developers and users who are familiar with "how to work with upstream code
providers, who use GitHub".

Stick with 0%, or go with "more than 0%" ?

As noted elsewhere, the GitHub Subversion support has been *sunsetted* and
will go away. That should be kept in mind. People will not be able to stick
to their svn client, whether readonly or read/write.

JoeS notes elsewhere that the git support provided by Infra is
strongly-linked to GitHub. From the Foundation's standpoint, the amount of
utility is provided is vastly higher than any business risk associated with
GitHub going dark or pulling their support for our Foundation. We have all
our data, all the provenance, and everything we need, should that day ever
arise. But it should not concern anybody in the community to create a
reliance/dependency upon GitHub.

Down-thread, Giovanni asks about security patch handling. We can continue
to use repos/private/pmc/httpd/ for that. That area will not go away. If
people want to go "all git", then Infra can provide projects with a single,
private repository that would function similarly.

IMO, I definitely think svn is a superior version control system to git. It
is much more approachable and easy to use, compared to git. I helped to
build svn, yet I use git daily; this isn't knee-jerk svn partisanship; svn
is simply better/easier. But *GitHub* is a fabulous tool. I will take the
inferior VCS in order to access the GitHub feature set. It is unfortunate
that such a site never got built for svn, but it is what it is. GitHub >
svn > git.

Cheers,
-g

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Greg Stein]

+1 for switching to GitHub (which implies a switch to git). So:

[X]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the
features of Github (for now Actions and PR).


On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 3:34 AM Ruediger Pluem  wrote:

> This is a formal vote on whether we should move our read/write repository
> from Subversion to Git.
> This means that our latest read/write repository will be no longer
> available via svn.apache.org. It
> will be available via Git at
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd-site.git and
> https://github.com/apache/httpd.git.
> Github also offers the possibility to use a Subversion client:
>
> https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/working-with-subversion-on-github/support-for-subversion-clients
>
>
> [ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't
> want to work with Github and I will only work with
>  what gitbox.apache.org offers.
> [ ]: Leave everything as is.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>

Re: [VOTE] Switch read/write repository from Subversion to Git

[Mario Brandt]

[x]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git and leverage the 
features of Github (for now Actions and PR).
[ ]: Move the read/write repository from Subversion to Git, but I don't want to 
work with Github and I will only work with
 what gitbox.apache.org offers.
[ ]: Leave everything as is.