Re: Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:57 PM Stefan Eissing wrote: > > > > Am 12.09.2018 um 14:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > > > As I said before, the main assumption in my suggestion is that there are > > things in trunk that "really should" be in some releasable version, stuff > > significant enough to

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

> On Sep 12, 2018, at 10:27 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > > I feel myself in agreement with Bill that trunk needs to be where 2.5.x is > born. > It is. That should be clear in the proposal. What should also be clear is that there is a LOT in trunk that should be in 2.4.x and has nothing

Re: Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

Thanks, this is useful. At first blush, this looks like there is a crap-ton of stuff in trunk than can, and should, be quickly and easily backported to 2.4 asap!! > On Sep 12, 2018, at 10:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:49 AM Jim Jagielski

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 09:19 Graham Leggett wrote: > On 12 Sep 2018, at 15:39, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > > Now, why would we *need* a 2.5.x branch? > > The primary need is to remove stuff that we deem not-ready-for-2.6-yet. > Modules without any docs for example would need to be either

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

> Am 12.09.2018 um 16:19 schrieb Graham Leggett : > > On 12 Sep 2018, at 15:39, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> Now, why would we *need* a 2.5.x branch? > > The primary need is to remove stuff that we deem not-ready-for-2.6-yet. > Modules without any docs for example would need to be either

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

Going to largely ignore most other input on this thread, beyond the underlying proposals to branch 2.5.x and move to RTC... On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 03:20 Stefan Eissing wrote: > In my estimation, cleaning up trunk (or a copy of it) via RTC will take > forever, at least. > > And while that

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

> On Sep 12, 2018, at 9:39 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > > So although others mentioned 2.4.x branch, this is not the origin of YOUR > proposal. Wow, that simplifies this discussion a lot (and hopefully, our new > committers who never even corresponded with some long absent colleagues

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On 12 Sep 2018, at 15:39, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Now, why would we *need* a 2.5.x branch? The primary need is to remove stuff that we deem not-ready-for-2.6-yet. Modules without any docs for example would need to be either documented or removed-from-2.5-that-will-become-2.6, keeping trunk

Re: Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:49 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > As I said before, the main assumption in my suggestion is that there are > things in trunk that "really should" be in some releasable version Everything in trunk is now digested into three groups of commits, for inspection. These don't

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 07:41 Jim Jagielski wrote: > Ahh. I think I see the problem! For some reason Bill sees this as somehow > Jim's (my) fork. It's not. It's a svn branch from HEAD of trunk, which > contains > all the changes. That branch is the projects's branch not some personal > fork,

Re: Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

> Am 12.09.2018 um 14:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > As I said before, the main assumption in my suggestion is that there are > things in trunk that "really should" be in some releasable version, stuff > significant enough to warrant the work, but is "impossible" to be backported > to 2.4. >

Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

As I said before, the main assumption in my suggestion is that there are things in trunk that "really should" be in some releasable version, stuff significant enough to warrant the work, but is "impossible" to be backported to 2.4. If there are no real significant-but-impossible-to-backport

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

Ahh. I think I see the problem! For some reason Bill sees this as somehow Jim's (my) fork. It's not. It's a svn branch from HEAD of trunk, which contains all the changes. That branch is the projects's branch not some personal fork, whatever that means. > On Sep 12, 2018, at 6:49 AM, William A

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

> On Sep 11, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > >> + clearly document the changes in 2.4 -> 2.5/2.6, to start building the >> next https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/upgrading.html. > > as well as docs/manual/new_features_2.5.xml > > I am not sure 2.6 has much to offer. But it's a

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

> Yes. To be clear, the proposal to make 2.5 Jim's fork, discarding all > previously committed changes to 2.5 (and I suppose, renumbering trunk as 2.7) > is a change to the project development process at httpd. What's being discarded in the proposal?

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 04:16 Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 09/12/2018 10:58 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > > On 12 Sep 2018, at 03:15, William A Rowe Jr > > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 17:42 Graham Leggett >> > wrote: > >> > >> On 11

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On 09/12/2018 10:58 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: On 12 Sep 2018, at 03:15, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 17:42 Graham Leggett > wrote: On 11 Sep 2018, at 20:35, Jim Jagielski mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote: > This

AW: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

Von: William A Rowe Jr Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. September 2018 03:15 An: httpd Betreff: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 17:42 Graham Leggett mailto:minf...@sharp.fm>> wrote: On 11 Sep 2018, at 20:35, Jim Jagielski mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote: W

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On 12 Sep 2018, at 03:15, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 17:42 Graham Leggett > wrote: > On 11 Sep 2018, at 20:35, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > This is what I propose: > > > > o Later on this week I svn cp trunk over to branches/2.5.x > > -1 ...

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

In my estimation, cleaning up trunk (or a copy of it) via RTC will take forever, at least. And while that continues, any bugfix can only be done in trunk. We then need 2(!) RTC proposals and votes per fix if it affects 2.4.x. (Which, until 2.6 is out and gets adopted, will be the case almost

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

I should have read this (shorter) reply first :) Le 12/09/2018 à 03:30, William A Rowe Jr a écrit : On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 13:35 Jim Jagielski > wrote: And finally, we have some things in trunk that will likely need to be majorly fixed or else scrapped.

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

Le 12/09/2018 à 03:15, William A Rowe Jr a écrit : On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 17:42 Graham Leggett > wrote: On 11 Sep 2018, at 20:35, Jim Jagielski wrote: > This is what I propose: > >  o Later on this week I svn cp trunk over to branches/2.5.x -1 ...

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

Le 12/09/2018 à 00:25, Yann Ylavic a écrit : Possibly: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/%3ccakq1svnw_vdpbzk6c+f30y5nbhhosbbwt_fubttsnc+r7mb...@mail.gmail.com%3E ? That was a proposal (nothing committed), I don't think the regression suspected by Bill was there, but had to work on

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 13:35 Jim Jagielski wrote: > > And finally, we have some things in trunk that will likely > need to be majorly fixed or else scrapped. > Please catalog these things. The reason that even-odds minor versions exist is to clean up trunk for a GA release. Otherwise we would

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018, 17:42 Graham Leggett wrote: > On 11 Sep 2018, at 20:35, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > This is what I propose: > > > > o Later on this week I svn cp trunk over to branches/2.5.x > -1 ... Veto on the basis of project bylaws. Propose a revision for voting. > o That branch

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On 11 Sep 2018, at 20:35, Jim Jagielski wrote: > This is what I propose: > > o Later on this week I svn cp trunk over to branches/2.5.x > o That branch becomes the initial source for 2.6.x > o trunk remains CTR, whereas branches/2.5.x becomes RTC >ala 2.4.x (ie: using STATUS and

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:07 PM Christophe JAILLET wrote: > > Le 11/09/2018 à 20:35, Jim Jagielski a écrit : > > I'd like for us to seriously consider the next steps > > related to the future of httpd. ++1 > > This is what I propose: > > > >o Later on this week I svn cp trunk over to

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

> + clearly document the changes in 2.4 -> 2.5/2.6, to start building the > next https://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/upgrading.html. as well as docs/manual/new_features_2.5.xml I am not sure 2.6 has much to offer. But it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem I guess. -- Eric Covener

Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

Le 11/09/2018 à 20:35, Jim Jagielski a écrit : I'd like for us to seriously consider the next steps related to the future of httpd. In trunk we have some stuff that can be easily, or, at least, *somewhat* easily backported to 2.4.x, and I personally think that we should do that. +1 But we

2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps

I'd like for us to seriously consider the next steps related to the future of httpd. In trunk we have some stuff that can be easily, or, at least, *somewhat* easily backported to 2.4.x, and I personally think that we should do that. But we also have some items which cannot be backported due to