Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

+1... The whole idea is to find bugs and issues before we do a formal release. We found one. It may have been "minor" but releasing s/w with known bugs is not something we should do. We release code when it's ready. > On Mar 7, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

On 07 Mar 2018, at 4:52 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > I tend to agree in principle. At the same time, we've discussed here that > version numbers are cheap and that we generally would like to release more > often, so I wanted to 'walk the talk'. Thank you for testing things

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

On 2018-03-05 10:31, Joe Orton wrote: On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 09:56:50AM -0600, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: Hi, all; Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 09:56:50AM -0600, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Hi, all; > >Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ > > > > I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate > tarball as

Re: Fix for ab defect (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31)

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 3:16 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 5:09 PM [] >> In this case though, this is not exactly "100% failure" in any >> circonstances, for

RE: Fix for ab defect (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31)

> -Original Message- > From: Yann Ylavic [mailto:ylavic@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 5:09 PM > To: httpd-dev <dev@httpd.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Fix for ab defect (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31) > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 11:4

Re: Fix for ab defect (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31)

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > > I'd like to ask a followup question... how do we catch this in the > test suite? With this (100% failure), ab still returns a 0 exit code. > It *does* at least give the error message to STDERR. Perhaps we > should

RE: Fix for ab defect (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31)

t: Sunday, March 04, 2018 1:25 PM > To: li...@rhsoft.net > Cc: httpd-dev <dev@httpd.apache.org> > Subject: Fix for ab defect (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31) > > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 6

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > > I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate > tarball as 2.4.31: [X] +1: It’s not just good, it’s good enough! Works for me on Debian(s) 9, 8 and 7. No opinion on whether "ab"

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:38 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: > > Am 04.03.2018 um 20:33 schrieb Yann Ylavic: >> >> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:27 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: >>> >>> >>> that patchfile is unuseable for rpmbuild >>> >>> + echo 'Patch #4

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

Am 04.03.2018 um 20:33 schrieb Yann Ylavic: On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:27 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: that patchfile is unuseable for rpmbuild + echo 'Patch #4 (httpd-2.4.x-ab-nonblock_length.patch):' Patch #4 (httpd-2.4.x-ab-nonblock_length.patch): + /usr/bin/patch

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:27 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: > > that pacthfile is unuseable for rpmbuild > > + echo 'Patch #4 (httpd-2.4.x-ab-nonblock_length.patch):' > Patch #4 (httpd-2.4.x-ab-nonblock_length.patch): > + /usr/bin/patch --no-backup-if-mismatch -p1 --fuzz=0 > can't

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

Am 04.03.2018 um 20:24 schrieb Yann Ylavic: On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 6:40 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: -1 "ab" no longer can benchmark https urls, same build-spec and environment (Fedora 26 and 27)

Fix for ab defect (was: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31)

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 6:40 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: >> >> -1 >> >> "ab" no longer can benchmark https urls, same build-spec and environment >> (Fedora 26 and 27) > > Hmm, looks like 2.4 is missing

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

> On Mar 3, 2018, at 4:51 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 6:40 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: >> >> -1 >> >> "ab" no longer can benchmark https urls, same build-spec and environment >> (Fedora 26 and 27) > > Hmm, looks like 2.4 is

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 6:40 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote: > > -1 > > "ab" no longer can benchmark https urls, same build-spec and environment > (Fedora 26 and 27) Hmm, looks like 2.4 is missing http://svn.apache.org/r1580928 (second hunk). This somehow never made it to 2.4.x,

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

Am 03.03.2018 um 16:56 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri:    Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate tarball as 2.4.31: [ ] +1: It’s not just good, it’s

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 03/03/2018 04:56 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: >> Hi, all; >> >>Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures: >> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ > > I know this is a bit nitpicky, and

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

On 03/03/2018 04:56 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Hi, all; > >    Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ I know this is a bit nitpicky, and we don't do this in all projects, but...can we please have the tarball digest in

[VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.31

Hi, all; Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate tarball as 2.4.31: [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough! [ ] +0: Let's have a