Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > no, you are just a hypocrite trying to forbid others voice their opinion in > their weay but not follow your own rules to always say critics nice and > lovely and so you have no point to play internet police on

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKGjOE_7bYI

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/27/2017 04:21 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Nick Edwards > wrote: >> You need some edumacation > > We're well aware of his notoriety and their relationship. I > personally don't care about motives or backstory for off-topic >

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Nick Edwards wrote: > You need some edumacation We're well aware of his notoriety and their relationship. I personally don't care about motives or backstory for off-topic shit-posting.

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

You need some edumacation, I've avoided getting involved in these comments but I think this has to be said. Reindl is a long time well known troll, a highly caustic and abusive one, he's been kicked off more industry mailing lists than you've probably had hot dinners for it, some other lists,

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Noel Butler wrote: > I never object to any sensible opinion. > > Harry, you were warned never to reply or respond to me, because you know > what happens if you do, i'll assume you were off your meds again when you > clicked reply and

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 24/01/2017 20:22, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 23.01.2017 um 02:52 schrieb Noel Butler: > >> Perhaps the only person who wont bend over and take it up the arse like >> some people here expect, if I have an opinion, i'll voice it > > no, you are just a hypocrite trying to forbid others voice

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 23/01/2017 19:14, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Am 23.01.2017 um 02:52 schrieb Noel Butler : > > On 20/01/2017 07:45, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 01/19/2017 12:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote: Frequent releases set off alarms > in system admins minds, frequent > releases give

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 24/01/2017 13:58, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > >> Perhaps the only person who wont bend over and take it up the arse like some >> people here expect, if I have an opinion, i'll voice it > > Noel, your immediately

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

Am 23.01.2017 um 02:52 schrieb Noel Butler: Perhaps the only person who wont bend over and take it up the arse like some people here expect, if I have an opinion, i'll voice it no, you are just a hypocrite trying to forbid others voice their opinion in their weay but not follow your own

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > Perhaps the only person who wont bend over and take it up the arse like > some people here expect, if I have an opinion, i'll voice it > Noel, your immediately prior post was an interesting example, although I fail to

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

> Am 23.01.2017 um 02:52 schrieb Noel Butler : > > On 20/01/2017 07:45, Jacob Champion wrote: > >> On 01/19/2017 12:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote: >>> Frequent releases set off alarms in system admins minds, frequent >>> releases give the view of unstable/unreliable software,

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 20/01/2017 07:45, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 01/19/2017 12:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > >> Frequent releases set off alarms in system admins minds, frequent >> releases give the view of unstable/unreliable software, and that is the >> largest cause of movement to an alternative. > > So, the

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 20/01/2017 07:07, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > On 20/01/2017 05:54, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > posts, I don't think you will find a single post where I suggested > that there is an issue with the frequency of

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/19/2017 12:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote: Frequent releases set off alarms in system admins minds, frequent releases give the view of unstable/unreliable software, and that is the largest cause of movement to an alternative. So, the last [1] two [2] times you've pushed this viewpoint, you've

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Here's the real issue, as I see it. If there have been "recent > breakages" it is not due to the release process, but rather > the *testing* process. That is, not enough people testing > 2.4-HEAD until we actually get

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 20/01/2017 05:54, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> posts, I don't think you will find a single post where I suggested >> that there is an issue with the frequency of releases, but please >> feel free. > > I believe

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 20/01/2017 05:54, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > posts, I don't think you will find a single post where I suggested > that there is an issue with the frequency of releases, but please > feel free. I believe that was me :) > You've put restated the argument again this month that if we > don't

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

There is no such thing as "Jim's Releases" or "Bill's Releases". The PMC votes on them and the release is an action of the PMC. It's a PMC release. As for why I do it: It's a chore. Mostly "thankless" due to the drama one needs to endure and the fact that you will be assured that at least someone

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > I don't agree with everything Bill is saying here, but to be fair to him: if > people are backporting new features and higher-risk changes to 2.4.x at the > same time an RM is trying to coordinate a bugfix-only

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/19/2017 07:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: You seem to be ignoring the times when bug-fixes, and regression-fix-only patches themselves have resulted in regressions. Sure, that does (and will continue to) happen. Every code change carries some risk, and no test suite is 100% perfect, but I

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Jan 18, 2017, at 8:35 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr >> wrote: >>> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

You seem to be ignoring the times when bug-fixes, and regression-fix-only patches themselves have resulted in regressions. Or when bug-fixes themselves devolve into grand-scale refactoring which greatly introduce the very real probability of regressions. Handling regressions seems independent

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > It will surprise no one that I like to release more often. OTOH I do > not like to break things. > > The current release model clearly does not work well, in my limited > experience over that last 15 months.

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 8:35 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26 >> that >> finally proves to be a workable upgrade for all

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

> Am 19.01.2017 um 10:08 schrieb Reindl Harald : > Am 19.01.2017 um 08:22 schrieb Stefan Eissing: >> Distros seem to have realized the problem long ago and make their own httpd >> versions. First time I realized my "httpd 2.4.7" is not the 2.4.7 release >> was a WTF

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

Am 19.01.2017 um 08:22 schrieb Stefan Eissing: Distros seem to have realized the problem long ago and make their own httpd versions. First time I realized my "httpd 2.4.7" is not the 2.4.7 release was a WTF moment. no, that applies to LTS distros and in that case of nearly any piece of

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

> Am 19.01.2017 um 06:34 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr >>> wrote: >>> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26 >> that >> finally proves to be a workable upgrade for all

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 6:12 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > I'm wondering if there is anyone interested in a regression-fix-only 2.4.26 > that > finally proves to be a workable upgrade for all httpd users? It sounds reasonable to me, but I think it's a bit of an oversell --

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 03 Jan 2017, at 2:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> So I'd like to know, in light of a perpetual chain of (often build and/or >> run-time breaking regression) enhancements, if there is support

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 01/04/2017 11:55 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: >> >> On 04 Jan 2017, at 8:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >>> >>> So, there's 3k of the 20k. And remember, my point was that we can >>> fix what I call

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/04/2017 11:55 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: On 04 Jan 2017, at 8:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: So, there's 3k of the 20k. And remember, my point was that we can fix what I call "dead code" with good old fashioned legwork. I don't advocate trashing trunk, and I don't

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 04 Jan 2017, at 8:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> Can you give us an example of this dead code? > > In modules/ alone (I haven't looked at server/ yet, and don't plan to today), > after ignoring build-related files and stripping the svn-diff context, there > are

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

To your questions of history; On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > 3) mod_apreq2 > > 1000 lines, added in 2011, no meaningful code changes since addition, no > tests, no documented public release of libapreq2 since 2010. (It does have > public

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/04/2017 12:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code in trunk. Can you give us an example of this dead code? In modules/ alone (I haven't looked

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/04/2017 12:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code in trunk. Can you give us an example of this dead code? I'm working to answer this question

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/04/2017 08:42 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: That’s not dead code, that’s just the difference between v2.4 and trunk. So long as the project chooses not to release it, it sits in a repository DoA. To a certain

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 04 Jan 2017, at 3:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >>> Can you give us an example of this dead code? >> >> svn diff --ignore-properties --no-diff-deleted -x --ignore-all-space >>

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 04 Jan 2017, at 3:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> Can you give us an example of this dead code? > > svn diff --ignore-properties --no-diff-deleted -x --ignore-all-space > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server >

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > >> I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code >> in trunk. > > Can you give us an example of this dead code? svn

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 3:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > > On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > >> I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code >> in trunk. > > Can you give us an example of this dead code?

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code > in trunk. Can you give us an example of this dead code? Regards, Graham — smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/03/2017 06:07 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: If trunk/ is a dead fork, it may be time for httpd to admit this, trash it and re-fork trunk from 2.4.x branch. I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code in trunk. The CTR policy contributes to that, IMO, but

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/02/2017 04:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: So far, discussions are polarized on a single axis... East: Let's work on 3.0; whatever is going on in 2.4 won't distract me, I won't spend time reviewing enhancements, because 3.0 is the goal. West: Let's keep the energy going on 2.4

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

Bill, your Email client is messed-up again, as related to how it handles copy/pasted text in replies. > On Jan 3, 2017, at 9:07 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Jan 3, 2017 02:19, "Graham Leggett" wrote: > > > Can you clarify the problem you’re trying

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

>Nobody built on Windows prior to the release so >we had a re-roll. Please contact me before a release, so I can test. Steffen AL --- Begin Message Group: gmane.comp.apache.devel MsgID:

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 03 Jan 2017, at 4:07 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Can you clarify the problem you’re trying to solve? > > v3.0 and v2.6 are just numbers. For modest changes, we move to v2.6. For a > very large architecture change (for example, the addition of filters in v1.x > to

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Jan 3, 2017 02:19, "Graham Leggett" wrote: Can you clarify the problem you’re trying to solve? v3.0 and v2.6 are just numbers. For modest changes, we move to v2.6. For a very large architecture change (for example, the addition of filters in v1.x to v2.x), we move to 3.0.

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > So I'd like to know, in light of a perpetual chain of (often build and/or > run-time breaking regression) enhancements, if there is support for a > 2.4.24.x release chain during the 3.0 transition? And support for >

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

> On Jan 2, 2017, at 7:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > So far, discussions are polarized on a single axis... > > East: Let's work on 3.0; whatever is going on in 2.4 won't distract me, I > won't spend time reviewing enhancements, because 3.0 is the goal. > > West:

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 03 Jan 2017, at 2:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > So far, discussions are polarized on a single axis... > > East: Let's work on 3.0; whatever is going on in 2.4 won't distract me, I > won't spend time reviewing enhancements, because 3.0 is the goal. > > West: Let's