Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
Eli Marmor wrote: Being slashdotted, will be also a good heavy-load test for daedalus, which runs 2.0.32... ;-) Except that, IIRC, daedalis is running prefork exclusively. Has any large site utilized worker? -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
I have a pretty major concern about releasing .32 as a GA product. We haven't had a whole lot of beta's. I would really like to get this beta into a lot of people's hands, and hopefully get our next release to be a GA release. I think that the best way to do this, is to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when we release .32. The message to krow should suggest that we believe that we are close to a GA product, but that we want to get this beta into as many hands as possible. Krow is the guy who posts Apache news to Slashdot. If he mentions that in the /. post, a lot of should download and test, and we can feel more confidant about the quality of this release. Ryan +1 Bill
Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
From: Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 12:56 AM On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Brian Pane wrote: I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate. In order to fix the last of the performance problems in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working on). I have another: I consider the existence of APR_BRIGADE_NORMALIZE a GA showstopper. We just cannot let filter developers think that clearing out a brigade of zero-length buckets is at all kosher IMO. Yet another thing I have to dig back into this coming week... Both good reasons to call .33 or .34 the GA release, based on Beta feedback. And one last good reason [external API change] ... we were discussing the deprecation of the apr_lock API in favor of the specific apr_lock objects that Aaron has advanced. I'm not sure of the status, but if we plan to do so, that is another big change don't want to foist on the world after GA. I thoroughly expect the apr group will want to call apr release 1.0 once a major project [e.g. Apache or Subversion] releases a GA based upon it, and work from there. One thing this means is that all the ap_ - apr_ compat.h changes probably don't belong to the apr project at all, they belong to httpd-2.0/include. APR will need to maintain their own apr_foo - apr_bar changes in the apr_ compat.h from 1.0 on forward. Bill
Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Brian Pane wrote: I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate. In order to fix the last of the performance problems in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working on). I have another: I consider the existence of APR_BRIGADE_NORMALIZE a GA showstopper. We just cannot let filter developers think that clearing out a brigade of zero-length buckets is at all kosher IMO. Yet another thing I have to dig back into this coming week... It is easy to prevent people from doing the same thing without changing the generated code (move the macro to core.c, rename it to ONLY_LAME_CODE_NEEDS_TO_REMOVE_ZERO_LENGTH_BUCKETS(), whatever floats your boat). Showstopper? No, IMHO. Something to clean up? Sure. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
Ryan Bloom wrote: I have a pretty major concern about releasing .32 as a GA product. We haven't had a whole lot of beta's. I would really like to get this beta into a lot of people's hands, and hopefully get our next release to be a GA release. I think that the best way to do this, is to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when we release .32. The message to krow should suggest that we believe that we are close to a GA product, but that we want to get this beta into as many hands as possible. Krow is the guy who posts Apache news to Slashdot. If he mentions that in the /. post, a lot of should download and test, and we can feel more confidant about the quality of this release. Being slashdotted, will be also a good heavy-load test for daedalus, which runs 2.0.32... ;-) -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
On 16 Feb 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote: It is easy to prevent people from doing the same thing without changing the generated code (move the macro to core.c, rename it to ONLY_LAME_CODE_NEEDS_TO_REMOVE_ZERO_LENGTH_BUCKETS(), whatever floats your boat). Showstopper? No, IMHO. Something to clean up? Sure. +1... I only said showstopper because it was an API change. -- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
Bill Stoddard wrote: Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is your best opportunity to ensure that your issues are addressed prior to an Apache 2.0 General Availability release. Bill sez... 2.0.32 may very well be our first GA release... I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate. In order to fix the last of the performance problems in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working on). I'm assuming that the bucket free list will require API changes. If so, then it would be difficult for 3rd party module maintainers if we announced a 2.0.32 GA release, with bucket-brigade-based filter support as one of its major new features relative to 1.3, and then released 2.0.33 or .34 with API changes to the bucket code shortly thereafter. --Brian
RE: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
Bill Stoddard wrote: Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is your best opportunity to ensure that your issues are addressed prior to an Apache 2.0 General Availability release. Bill sez... 2.0.32 may very well be our first GA release... I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate. In order to fix the last of the performance problems in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working on). I'm assuming that the bucket free list will require API changes. If so, then it would be difficult for 3rd party module maintainers if we announced a 2.0.32 GA release, with bucket-brigade-based filter support as one of its major new features relative to 1.3, and then released 2.0.33 or .34 with API changes to the bucket code shortly thereafter. I have a pretty major concern about releasing .32 as a GA product. We haven't had a whole lot of beta's. I would really like to get this beta into a lot of people's hands, and hopefully get our next release to be a GA release. I think that the best way to do this, is to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when we release .32. The message to krow should suggest that we believe that we are close to a GA product, but that we want to get this beta into as many hands as possible. Krow is the guy who posts Apache news to Slashdot. If he mentions that in the /. post, a lot of should download and test, and we can feel more confidant about the quality of this release. Ryan
Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
Just for the record, it seems someone already saw the tarball and posted it to freshmeat. http://freshmeat.net/releases/69982/ Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is your best opportunity to ensure that your issues are addressed prior to an Apache 2.0 General Availability release. Bill sez... 2.0.32 may very well be our first GA release... I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate. In order to fix the last of the performance problems in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working on). I'm assuming that the bucket free list will require API changes. If so, then it would be difficult for 3rd party module maintainers if we announced a 2.0.32 GA release, with bucket-brigade-based filter support as one of its major new features relative to 1.3, and then released 2.0.33 or .34 with API changes to the bucket code shortly thereafter. I have a pretty major concern about releasing .32 as a GA product. We haven't had a whole lot of beta's. I would really like to get this beta into a lot of people's hands, and hopefully get our next release to be a GA release. I think that the best way to do this, is to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when we release .32. The message to krow should suggest that we believe that we are close to a GA product, but that we want to get this beta into as many hands as possible. Krow is the guy who posts Apache news to Slashdot. If he mentions that in the /. post, a lot of should download and test, and we can feel more confidant about the quality of this release. Ryan
Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
Ryan Bloom wrote: Bill Stoddard wrote: Design and implementation of Apache 2.0 is nearing completion. Module authors are encouraged to review the Apache 2.0 API and share any concerns with the Apache development team at [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is your best opportunity to ensure that your issues are addressed prior to an Apache 2.0 General Availability release. Bill sez... 2.0.32 may very well be our first GA release... it might be. lets just get the beta out first, and see how people find it what we should be concentrating on now is fixing the bugs in the beta, and not adding any new features or 'fixing' things which work. this is how I believe we will get to a GA from here. If cliff's changes require a API change, we could do the API change now (post .32) and that will get the pressure of cliff on producing the whole patch, leaving him more time to test it. how does that sound? my 2c (4c in Australian money ;-) Ian I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate. In order to fix the last of the performance problems in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working on). I'm assuming that the bucket free list will require API changes. If so, then it would be difficult for 3rd party module maintainers if we announced a 2.0.32 GA release, with bucket-brigade-based filter support as one of its major new features relative to 1.3, and then released 2.0.33 or .34 with API changes to the bucket code shortly thereafter. I have a pretty major concern about releasing .32 as a GA product. We haven't had a whole lot of beta's. I would really like to get this beta into a lot of people's hands, and hopefully get our next release to be a GA release. I think that the best way to do this, is to send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when we release .32. The message to krow should suggest that we believe that we are close to a GA product, but that we want to get this beta into as many hands as possible. Krow is the guy who posts Apache news to Slashdot. If he mentions that in the /. post, a lot of should download and test, and we can feel more confidant about the quality of this release. Ryan
Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Ian Holsman wrote: If cliff's changes require a API change, we could do the API change now (post .32) and that will get the pressure of cliff on producing the whole patch, leaving him more time to test it. The API change is almost all of the work. But it's within spitting distance. Look for a patch Monday or Tuesday. --Cliff -- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
Re: 2.0.32 as GA candidate? Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.0.32 beta announcement
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Brian Pane wrote: I have one concern about 2.0.32 as a GA candidate. In order to fix the last of the performance problems in 2.0.x, we'll need to incorporate free lists for buckets (the stuff that Cliff is working on). I have another: I consider the existence of APR_BRIGADE_NORMALIZE a GA showstopper. We just cannot let filter developers think that clearing out a brigade of zero-length buckets is at all kosher IMO. Yet another thing I have to dig back into this coming week... --Cliff -- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
