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: We have never

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

Re: svn commit: r1840585 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: docs/log-message-tags/next-number modules/ssl/ssl_engine_kernel.c

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 03:11:48PM +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote: > How much have your testings now proceeded? Yann reported interop with > firefox for him against trunk. Did you manage to track down your > problems? Something missing in the branch? Right now for me there is only the

async mod_proxy_http

Forking from the Cool Stuff thread. Have you noticed that the wstunnell stuff makes the suspended count in the MPM grow? There is no API for us to tell the MPM that when we get the socket-activity callback that we are "resuming" something. (going from vague recollection) -- Eric Covener

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: TLSv1.3 supprt for 2.4.x?

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:17 PM Joe Orton wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:39:42PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:13 PM Joe Orton wrote: > > > > > > Does anybody have successful test results with post-handshake auth? I'm > > > testing against Fedora's OpenSSL

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:01 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > If there is still interest, there are a handful of useful backports in > STATUS that could use review, testing and voting :-) > Unless the goal is to replace one set of regressions with a new set of regressions, it's past due to tag 2.4.35

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

> On Sep 12, 2018, at 4:14 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Since we still have no schema to solve the project maintenance side of > shipping source code Sorry, but we have this thing called creating test tarballs and calling for a vote. I am sure you remember that. The idea is that people

Re: 2.4.35 in Sept?

> On Sep 12, 2018, at 4:14 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 8:01 AM Jim Jagielski > wrote: > If there is still interest, there are a handful of useful backports in STATUS > that could use review, testing and voting :-) > > Unless the goal is

Re: async mod_proxy_http

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:53 PM Eric Covener wrote: > > Forking from the Cool Stuff thread. > > Have you noticed that the wstunnell stuff makes the suspended count in > the MPM grow? There is no API for us to tell the MPM that when we get > the socket-activity callback that we are "resuming"

Re: async mod_proxy_http

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:59 PM Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:53 PM Eric Covener wrote: > > > > Forking from the Cool Stuff thread. > > > > Have you noticed that the wstunnell stuff makes the suspended count in > > the MPM grow? There is no API for us to tell the MPM that when

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: 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 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: 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

> 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

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: 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 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: svn commit: r1840585 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: docs/log-message-tags/next-number modules/ssl/ssl_engine_kernel.c

> Am 11.09.2018 um 19:12 schrieb Joe Orton : > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:01 PM wrote: >>> >>> Author: jorton >>> Date: Tue Sep 11 16:01:47 2018 >>> New Revision: 1840585 >>> >>> URL:

Re: TLSv1.3 supprt for 2.4.x?

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:39:42PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:13 PM Joe Orton wrote: > > > > Does anybody have successful test results with post-handshake auth? I'm > > testing against Fedora's OpenSSL 1.1.1pre9 which has merged the changes > > for

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: 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

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

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: 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. >

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

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

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 ...