Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-04 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:40 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > http://people.apache.org/~markt/patches/2019-06-03-h2-v1.patch I'm testing extensively, and this patch http://people.apache.org/~markt/patches/2019-06-03-h2-v2.patch looks good to me. Rémy

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:40 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 22:29, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > How about this as an idea: > > > > --- a/java/org/apache/coyote/AbstractProtocol.java > > +++ b/java/org/apache/coyote/AbstractProtocol.java > > @@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ > >

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Mark Thomas
On 03/06/2019 22:29, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > How about this as an idea: > > --- a/java/org/apache/coyote/AbstractProtocol.java > +++ b/java/org/apache/coyote/AbstractProtocol.java > @@ -905,6 +905,10 @@ >                                  } >                              }

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:06 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 21:45, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Mark Thomas > > wrote: > > > > On 03/06/2019 19:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ok, that's completely different

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Mark Thomas
On 03/06/2019 21:45, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Mark Thomas > wrote: > > On 03/06/2019 19:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > > > Ok, that's completely different ;) I tried to be careful with > that, but > > the algorithm

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:05 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 19:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > > > Ok, that's completely different ;) I tried to be careful with that, but > > the algorithm changes to non blocking, so obviously there were some > > risks involved. I'll have a quick look at

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Mark Thomas
On 03/06/2019 19:54, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > Ok, that's completely different ;) I tried to be careful with that, but > the algorithm changes to non blocking, so obviously there were some > risks involved. I'll have a quick look at it, but you can go ahead with > your window update fix and tag,

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:36 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 16:43, Mark Thomas wrote: > > On 03/06/2019 14:15, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > > > > >> I think I have found at least one more edge case around the > >> Stream/Connection allocation handling. Fixing it is going to mean >

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Mark Thomas
On 03/06/2019 16:43, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 03/06/2019 14:15, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >> I think I have found at least one more edge case around the >> Stream/Connection allocation handling. Fixing it is going to mean going >> back to a synchronizing on a single object (Stream) so

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Mark Thomas
On 03/06/2019 14:15, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:21 PM Mark Thomas > wrote: > > Hi, > > It is the start of another month so I intend to tag 9.0.x and 8.5.x > shortly. Or at least I did until I found a handful of HTTP/2 related >

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:21 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > It is the start of another month so I intend to tag 9.0.x and 8.5.x > shortly. Or at least I did until I found a handful of HTTP/2 related > failures when I ran the unit tests on Windows for 9.0.x. > Bad news :( I haven't run into it.

Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-06-03 Thread Mark Thomas
Hi, It is the start of another month so I intend to tag 9.0.x and 8.5.x shortly. Or at least I did until I found a handful of HTTP/2 related failures when I ran the unit tests on Windows for 9.0.x. I think I have found at least one more edge case around the Stream/Connection allocation handling.

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-05-02 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:23 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > Just a heads up that I'm intended to tag these soon. Possibly tomorrow > but certainly by the end of the week. I just have a few things I want to > look at first. > Should I leave the async IO code enabled, or should it remain

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-05-01 Thread Woonsan Ko
Hi Mark, Thanks for the heads up! I'd like to fill in some missing Korean translations (~ 10 new items), and push the exported strings in the master branch tonight. Cheers, Woonsan On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > > Hi, > > Just a heads up that I'm intended to tag these

Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2019-05-01 Thread Mark Thomas
Hi, Just a heads up that I'm intended to tag these soon. Possibly tomorrow but certainly by the end of the week. I just have a few things I want to look at first. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-06-06 Thread Mark Thomas
On 31/05/18 15:14, Rémy Maucherat wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:20 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> June is almost upon us so I'm thinking about the next release round. >> >> I've got a couple of small tasks on my personal TODO list and there are >> one or two BZ issues that could

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-05-31 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 3:20 PM Mark Thomas wrote: > Hi all, > > June is almost upon us so I'm thinking about the next release round. > > I've got a couple of small tasks on my personal TODO list and there are > one or two BZ issues that could be resolved. I plan to complete these > tasks and

Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-05-31 Thread Mark Thomas
Hi all, June is almost upon us so I'm thinking about the next release round. I've got a couple of small tasks on my personal TODO list and there are one or two BZ issues that could be resolved. I plan to complete these tasks and then tag. Depending how things go, I currently anticipate tagging

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-04-03 Thread Rémy Maucherat
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: > As we have just passed the start of the month I plan to fix any open > bugs and then tag with a view to releasing end of this week / early next. > +1 On the BZ front, it looks pretty good. Rémy

Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-04-03 Thread Mark Thomas
As we have just passed the start of the month I plan to fix any open bugs and then tag with a view to releasing end of this week / early next. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional

Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-02-02 Thread Mark Thomas
Hi, It is the beginning on the month again so I am planning on tagging early next week. There are a few bugs still to be fixed so that might slip a little. Please respond on these thread if you need me to delay for any reason. Mark

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-01-08 Thread Mark Thomas
On 08/01/18 09:31, Konstantin Kolinko wrote: > 2018-01-04 23:42 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: >> Hi all, >> >> It is the start of a new month and the open issue list looks to be clear >> so I'm planning on tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x early next week. >

Re: Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-01-08 Thread Konstantin Kolinko
2018-01-04 23:42 GMT+03:00 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>: > Hi all, > > It is the start of a new month and the open issue list looks to be clear > so I'm planning on tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x early next week. Is there a need for a new Tomcat-Native build for Windows, to update

Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2018-01-04 Thread Mark Thomas
Hi all, It is the start of a new month and the open issue list looks to be clear so I'm planning on tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x early next week. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional

Tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x

2016-10-31 Thread Mark Thomas
Hi, Just a quick heads up that I hope to be tagging 9.0.x and 8.5.x soon - maybe as early as tomorrow. As always, I want to clear the open bugs first so that might push the tag back a day or too depending on how complex the remaining issues turn out to be. Mark