Re: 2.2.7 seems to come in sight: Digest of STATUS
On Nov 15, 2007, at 4:22 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Ruediger Pluem wrote: Now that the TR of APR / APR-UTIL is in progress (Thanks Other Bill) httpd 2.2.7 seems to come in sight. There are about 10 backport proposals in the STATUS file that are only missing one vote. So come on it is voting and review time guys :-)). There is one backport proposal (http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/httpd-2.0-2.2-procattr-bugfix- log.c.patch) by Other Bill for core log.c that might be a show stopper for 2.2.7 and is waiting for reply / discussion and two votes. As soon as a snapshot of mod_ftp is created (to start discussing release 1) I'll have the win machine up and testing the messes in pipe inheritence, and handing off the last two patches I'd like considered (for log, and the mpm). My plan is to take time early tomorrow and over the weekend to test and vote, in hopes of releasing 2.2.7 say around the top of Dec...
Re: 2.2.7 seems to come in sight: Digest of STATUS
Ruediger Pluem wrote: Now that the TR of APR / APR-UTIL is in progress (Thanks Other Bill) httpd 2.2.7 seems to come in sight. There are about 10 backport proposals in the STATUS file that are only missing one vote. So come on it is voting and review time guys :-)). There is one backport proposal (http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/httpd-2.0-2.2-procattr-bugfix-log.c.patch) by Other Bill for core log.c that might be a show stopper for 2.2.7 and is waiting for reply / discussion and two votes. As soon as a snapshot of mod_ftp is created (to start discussing release 1) I'll have the win machine up and testing the messes in pipe inheritence, and handing off the last two patches I'd like considered (for log, and the mpm). Bill
Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7
On 9/28/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So with Jorge's and help from a few others, 2.2.6 builds quite nicely at the command line. To make the transition to the GUI requires some other steps, and I'm hoping these are simpler with 2.2.7 if I have a whole weekend to work them up before we start to TR. Bill The last one to build successfully from the vs.net IDE was 2.2.4 -- ~Jorge
Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7
On 9/28/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So with Jorge's and help from a few others, 2.2.6 builds quite nicely at the command line. To make the transition to the GUI requires some other steps, and I'm hoping these are simpler with 2.2.7 if I have a whole weekend to work them up before we start to TR. The last one to build successfully from the vs.net http://vs.net IDE was 2.2.4 When you use manager / add target x64, it transforms many of the paths from .../Release to .../x64/Release, for example. Unfortunately not all and not consistently. I'm looking to make at least 95% of that process more smooth. (This is x64, I'm not talking about the default which should work just fine in 2.2.6, or quite close to it). Bill
Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7
On 9/28/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/28/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So with Jorge's and help from a few others, 2.2.6 builds quite nicely at the command line. To make the transition to the GUI requires some other steps, and I'm hoping these are simpler with 2.2.7 if I have a whole weekend to work them up before we start to TR. The last one to build successfully from the vs.net http://vs.net IDE was 2.2.4 When you use manager / add target x64, it transforms many of the paths from .../Release to .../x64/Release, for example. Unfortunately not all and not consistently. I'm looking to make at least 95% of that process more smooth. (This is x64, I'm not talking about the default which should work just fine in 2.2.6, or quite close to it). Bill Yeah the IDE does some funcky stuff when switching plantforms :( I makes it hard to link to stuff for compiling 3rd party modules too -_- If you want me to test some stuff you know where to find me. -- ~Jorge
Re: 2.2.7
2007/9/27, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [...] Here at [EMAIL PROTECTED] we are trying to create a better server, and having fun in the process. As long as we don't splinter the effort of improving httpd server or make more work for the project members, we'll all have fun at it. I'm not picking on you, let's solve the issues. Bill I still don't want to feed that troll, but, enough of it ... having fun in the process is largely over-stated... I remember, for example, the territorial flame war about mod_mem_cache that had nothing fun (where davi wrote he was leaving the mailing/dev ...). And the we, for fun against you, for profit argument is well demonstrated by a more recent mail of Nick Kew: Some apache developers, including myself[1], make a living doing contract work for companies with development needs, such as yours. If you have a budget, I'll be happy to talk to you. The fact you're looking to make it available as open source will qualify you for a reduction in my standard rate. (And you talk about spam regarding apachelounge, please...) Thus, Apache commiters or developers are developping for fun (sometimes for fame) AND profit. And that's not my opinion, but what Nick says. Apache is a way to make money (consulting, conferences, etc.), and not only to develop a better server. I had a nice experience about it with a patch I submitted regarding mod_setenvif, discussed on IRC with nick who told me it was redundant with mod_filter (at a time were mod_filter was not production ready, and that patch was already deployed and easily code-reviewed ). The features provided by this patch were (and still are) very useful for some users (customers of my company, and lot other according to the downloading of it, including Brian Akins), easier in a lot of way to manage than Nick's mod_filter, and was +1 in this mailing list (including by a commiter). But, it was/is ignored, refused, etc. Please, just stop to make argumentation opposing opensource or community people against business people, and adding we may coexist peacefully blablabla. It sounds to me like all is about business here, and that's not a problem for me, but please don't make innocent readers of this mailing list believe that it is about something like hippie - opensource community here. Regarding the threatening mail from Roy T. Fielding, : There would not be a windows version of Apache without Bill's efforts to keep it alive, and there won't be one in the future if windows developers refuse to participate in the development mailing lists HERE. Really ? Do you mean that without William Rowe, Covalent ( http://www.covalent.net/about/management.html ) would have chosen an other opensource product. Are you sure that no other company at all would have found a way (or a brilliant developer) to make money from apache certified builds ? I really don't like the kind of disinformation you are making here, so please, stop politics and marketing here, and let's talk about development. And please, don't misunderstand me : I fully appreciate the work everyone is doing here, including Nick's and William's. I particularly thanks them for their availability and politeness on IRC and this mailing list. Regards. -- *Francois Pesce*
Re: 2.2.7
Regarding the threatening mail from Roy T. Fielding, : There would not be a windows version of Apache without Bill's efforts to keep it alive, and there won't be one in the future if windows developers refuse to participate in the development mailing lists HERE. Really ? Do you mean that without William Rowe, Covalent ( http:// www.covalent.net/about/management.html ) would have chosen an other opensource product. Are you sure that no other company at all would have found a way (or a brilliant developer) to make money from apache certified builds ? Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. What's being said is that Apache for Windows is a volunteer effort, and that William Rowe is, at this moment, the most active of those volunteers. It's not a threat at all. It's a reality. Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain statement of the reality of how this operates. Likewise, Apache for BeOs existed due to the efforts of volunteers. It no longer exists, because there are no longer volunteers to make it exist. Again, reality, not threat. I'm getting rather weary of the tone of this conversation. I'm still naive enough to believe that most of us here truly believe in the notion of Open Source. I'm also grown up enough to understand that most of us here have a monthly water bill that we have to pay, and that making money is actually a very handy thing, and not something to treat as dirty to talk about. Steffen, we welcome your participation. You have fixes that make 2.2.6 more usable on Windows. Great. Submit patches so that 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 contain those fixes. Help us make the world better. -- Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. Mahatma Ghandi
Re: 2.2.7
On 27.09.2007, at 10:05, François wrote: 2007/9/27, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [...] Here at [EMAIL PROTECTED] we are trying to create a better server, and having fun in the process. As long as we don't splinter the effort of improving httpd server or make more work for the project members, we'll all have fun at it. I'm not picking on you, let's solve the issues. Bill ... And the we, for fun against you, for profit argument is well demonstrated by a more recent mail of Nick Kew: Some apache developers, including myself[1], make a living doing contract work for companies with development needs, such as yours. If you have a budget, I'll be happy to talk to you. The fact you're looking to make it available as open source will qualify you for a reduction in my standard rate. (And you talk about spam regarding apachelounge, please...) Thus, Apache commiters or developers are developping for fun (sometimes for fame) AND profit. ... Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. etc... ;-0 Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! Just my 2c... Cheers, Erik
Re: 2.2.7
2007/9/27, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. IMHO, this kind of subtleties concerns marketing. When a company pays someone to contribute to a software development, it is highly the same than to invest into this software, however it gets its money back : consulting (they have got commiters, their customers can directly check what they're able to do), lobbying (commiters, they can publish their customer's modification to avoid a re-patch at every new version), marketing (look, they are promoting open source). What's being said is that Apache for Windows is a volunteer effort, and that William Rowe is, at this moment, the most active of those volunteers. It's not a threat at all. It's a reality. I didn't say that quoted text was the threat, but that the whole mail was threatening. Concerning the volunteer effort, the reality is that a lot of the current and active commiters are making it for money or fame, to sell consulting time or books or take a salary from a company happy to have an apache member among its employees. But, don't mistake: in this case, the governance of an open-source project is not independent of the money: the excerpt of Nick Kew's mail is a good example of it. If that user's feature request were really necessary, why don't let a volunteer develop it ? And it is obvious and logical that if a feature or a bugfix is prioritized in a company such as IBM, Covalent or whichever that pays an employee as a commiter, it will be fixed first, no matter of how many volunteer's patches are hanging in bugzilla or in attachment of an httpd-dev mail. Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain statement of the reality of how this operates. I do agree, but aren't ApacheLounge people volunteers to make things move ? I really don't care about Apache for Windows, but, what about creating commiters access for these guys if they want to be active ? Likewise, Apache for BeOs existed due to the efforts of volunteers. It no longer exists, because there are no longer volunteers to make it exist. Again, reality, not threat. I'm getting rather weary of the tone of this conversation. I'm still naive enough to believe that most of us here truly believe in the notion of Open Source. I'm also grown up enough to understand that most of us here have a monthly water bill that we have to pay, and that making money is actually a very handy thing, and not something to treat as dirty to talk about. I quickly browsed apachelounge forum, it seems that they didn't hide their code modifications, thus, that's still open source. I didn't talk about free software here. The notion of Open Source is not incompatible with business. What make me weary in this situation is the tone of people pointing at AL as if it were an ugly duck doing a disservice to the windows user community, spaming, promoting their own business, etc. Steffen, we welcome your participation. You have fixes that make 2.2.6 more usable on Windows. Great. Submit patches so that 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 contain those fixes. Help us make the world better. +1 2007/9/27, Erik Abele [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. etc... ;-0 Sure, he just signs with a web site that affiliates to sell his book ;-) (but I repeat : that's not a problem for me). Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! Then, create a svn access to apache lounge people that patch httpd, and stop to flame/troll/point at these guys. At this time, they will maybe be responsable enough to stop the spam and adopt the same business model as the other commiter : consulting, lobbying or marketing. And that will completely reflect a general feeling : it is all about making money in the most discrete way. period CR-LF -- *Francois Pesce*
RE: 2.2.7
Very well put Rich. Ed Herring AMR2 BaR Administrator 512-314-1133 Cell Phone 512-917-8480 From: Rich Bowen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:39 AM To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: 2.2.7 Regarding the threatening mail from Roy T. Fielding, : There would not be a windows version of Apache without Bill's efforts to keep it alive, and there won't be one in the future if windows developers refuse to participate in the development mailing lists HERE. Really ? Do you mean that without William Rowe, Covalent ( http://www.covalent.net/about/management.html ) would have chosen an other opensource product. Are you sure that no other company at all would have found a way (or a brilliant developer) to make money from apache certified builds ? Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. What's being said is that Apache for Windows is a volunteer effort, and that William Rowe is, at this moment, the most active of those volunteers. It's not a threat at all. It's a reality. Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain statement of the reality of how this operates. Likewise, Apache for BeOs existed due to the efforts of volunteers. It no longer exists, because there are no longer volunteers to make it exist. Again, reality, not threat. I'm getting rather weary of the tone of this conversation. I'm still naive enough to believe that most of us here truly believe in the notion of Open Source. I'm also grown up enough to understand that most of us here have a monthly water bill that we have to pay, and that making money is actually a very handy thing, and not something to treat as dirty to talk about. Steffen, we welcome your participation. You have fixes that make 2.2.6 more usable on Windows. Great. Submit patches so that 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 contain those fixes. Help us make the world better. -- Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it. Mahatma Ghandi
Re: 2.2.7
Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push them out to my site within a week of the source release. I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I can change my way if there is interest. -- ~Jorge
Re: 2.2.7
On 09/27/2007 05:04 PM, François wrote: 2007/9/27, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Um ... No, that's not at all what's being said. Quite apart from the history of the founding of that company ... but that's utterly irrelevant here. Companies aren't participants in Apache projects. Individuals are. IMHO, this kind of subtleties concerns marketing. When a company pays someone to contribute to a software development, it is highly the same than to invest into this software, however it gets its money back : consulting (they have got commiters, their customers can directly check what they're able to do), lobbying (commiters, they can publish their customer's modification to avoid a re-patch at every new version), marketing (look, they are promoting open source). It is not really the same. If the commiter leaves the company and it is the only commiter in this company than there is no commit access for this company any longer. But the new company he starts at will have commit access now. I say commit access because people need to wear their Apache hat when commiting not their company hat when commiting. That does not mean that you cannot bring forward your company interest when commiting, but you are not allowed to commit something from which you know that it is against the interest of the ASF project. People here understand hat switching very well. Then, create a svn access to apache lounge people that patch httpd, and stop to flame/troll/point at these guys. We are a meritocracy (http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy). So they have to earn commit access. Furthermore earning commit access is not only about code itself but much more about community and the style of doing development. But as others already said their contributions are welcome and continued contributions are the way to commitership. Regards Rüdiger
Re: 2.2.7
On Sep 27, 2007, at 11:04 AM, François wrote: 2007/9/27, Rich Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Furthermore, Apache for Windows will only continue to exist if there is a steady flow of these volunteers. This (dev@) is the forum in which they operate. This, also, is not a threat, but a plain statement of the reality of how this operates. I do agree, but aren't ApacheLounge people volunteers to make things move ? I really don't care about Apache for Windows, but, what about creating commiters access for these guys if they want to be active ? As we all know, commit access is something earned, and it's not only based on your coding abilities but how well you work within the collaborative, communal aspect of ASF projects. Official ASF development is done here, on this list. So that would be a good place for people to start who are interested in really contributing to Apache... right here. Post bugs here and on BUGZ. Post analysis results here... patches too. Suggest improvements here. But to instead try to encourage that development to happen elsewhere, instead of here does not help at all.
x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7
On Sep 27, 2007 9:22 AM, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push them out to my site within a week of the source release. I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I can change my way if there is interest. Would you mind documenting your method? (Would the wiki be the right place for this?) Thanks! -- justin
Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7
My method is documentated here: http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/knowledge/tutorials/x64 It is on my wiki todo list but school is keeping me busy + the weekends are going to some stuff that is earning me money. My method has evolved slightly but not very much just minor tweaks to make things easier for me :) On 9/27/07, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 27, 2007 9:22 AM, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push them out to my site within a week of the source release. I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I can change my way if there is interest. Would you mind documenting your method? (Would the wiki be the right place for this?) Thanks! -- justin -- ~Jorge
Re: 2.2.7
Erik Abele wrote: Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. etc... ;-0 Nick's comment didn't even mention he does this exclusively, he pointed out that there are a number of devs or organizations who can provide such services, and was *probably* letting the user know that the scope of their troubles was not going to elicit them enough purely voulenteer help. Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! I want to be sure folks understand that the relabeling that Steffan and the AL team have already done went a long way to satisfying almost any of the project's possible concerns; the Feather is gone, disclaimers are posted. W.r.t. actually creating or distributing RC's, Colm's points went a long way to convince me they can be helpful --- that is if and only if the feedback gets back to where it might be useful to improving the s/w. Also note we only post binaries from committers; we can't/won't elicit or host them for add'l third parties. So for example, any committer is welcome to post updated sun .pkg's. But we wouldn't accept those from Sun. The origin of all of the files under http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/ is from an Apache httpd project committer, each of whom is bound to a CLA (to resolve any possible IP/trust issues.) Bill
Re: x64 binary build instructions was Re: 2.2.7
Just for reference, Jorge's been instrumental in providing feedback that has made it easier (not trivial, yet) to build for x64 on Windows. There's actually a build log sitting off in http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/ if anyone is interested in how noisy the 64 bit builds still are on win32, we seem to have made hundreds of steps forward, but dozens of steps back in the most actively maintained code. Some real headaches; sizeof() and strlen() give you a size_t, which != int on a P64 platform like Windows (pointers == 64 bit, int/long == 32 bit). Most unicies we test on are either ILP64 or LP64, where at least the sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*). So with Jorge's and help from a few others, 2.2.6 builds quite nicely at the command line. To make the transition to the GUI requires some other steps, and I'm hoping these are simpler with 2.2.7 if I have a whole weekend to work them up before we start to TR. Bill Jorge Schrauwen wrote: My method is documentated here: http://www.blackdot.be/?inc=apache/knowledge/tutorials/x64 It is on my wiki todo list but school is keeping me busy + the weekends are going to some stuff that is earning me money. My method has evolved slightly but not very much just minor tweaks to make things easier for me :) On 9/27/07, *Justin Erenkrantz* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 27, 2007 9:22 AM, Jorge Schrauwen [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I could provide x64 binaries if there is interest in them. I usually push them out to my site within a week of the source release. I'm not 100% sure my method of creating them is the same as the ASF's but I can change my way if there is interest. Would you mind documenting your method? (Would the wiki be the right place for this?) Thanks! -- justin
Re: 2.2.7
On 27.09.2007, at 17:04, François wrote: 2007/9/27, Erik Abele [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! Then, create a svn access to apache lounge people that patch httpd As Jim and Ruediger already pointed out, that's not how the ASF works. You'll have to earn the merit - it's a trust thing ;) and stop to flame/troll/point at these guys. Oh, there's no flaming involved AFAICS; don't confuse constructive criticism with unsubstantial insults... but you're right, we should probably simply ignore it, don't feed the trolls etc... Cheers, Erik
Re: 2.2.7
On 28.09.2007, at 01:28, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Erik Abele wrote: Sure, we all have to pay our bills but you're overlooking a difference: Nick just replied to an inquiry offering his (and others services); he doesn't advertise any revenue-generating site after every release etc. etc... ;-0 Nick's comment didn't even mention he does this exclusively, he pointed out that there are a number of devs or organizations who can provide such services, and was *probably* letting the user know that the scope of their troubles was not going to elicit them enough purely voulenteer help. Exactly! Again, Steffens contributions would be very welcomed *here* if this whole AL thing were just not that misleading - hey, with some effort he could e.g. help out constructively by building these binaries in a transparent and documented way *here* and we could even distribute them from apache.org/dist (plus mirrors) to help the win community even more! I want to be sure folks understand that the relabeling that Steffan and the AL team have already done went a long way to satisfying almost any of the project's possible concerns; the Feather is gone, disclaimers are posted. W.r.t. actually creating or distributing RC's, Colm's points went a long way to convince me they can be helpful --- that is if and only if the feedback gets back to where it might be useful to improving the s/w. Absolutely. Also note we only post binaries from committers; we can't/won't elicit or host them for add'l third parties. So for example, any committer is welcome to post updated sun .pkg's. But we wouldn't accept those from Sun. The origin of all of the files under http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/ is from an Apache httpd project committer, each of whom is bound to a CLA (to resolve any possible IP/trust issues.) Yep, maybe my post was misleading; with some effort I actually meant becoming a committer... :) Cheers, Erik
Re: 2.2.7
On 09/26/2007 03:11 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like for us to consider a release of 2.2.7 in October to address the Windows file handle issues as well some other fixes that would be useful to get out quickly... +1 as soon as the Windows file handle issues are fixed in APR and probably in httpd. Bill any update on this regarding the APR side? AFAIU despite Tom's work with mod_perl and it's patches that seem to solve the problem it is still unclear why things work like they do. I guess this wants fixing first. I think that PR43472 (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43472) would be also an important thing to backport once it is clear that my patch doesn't break things on Windows or other systems. I am not quite sure if the proxy patches Nick is currently working on will fit into this timescale. Depending on their importance we might need to have a look on the timescale again. Regards Rüdiger
Re: 2.2.7
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:15:06 +0200 Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not quite sure if the proxy patches Nick is currently working on will fit into this timescale. Depending on their importance we might need to have a look on the timescale again. Of course it puts pressure on the milestone of closing all diagnosed protocol violations in mod_proxy (excluding cache). I expect to be in a position to post a roadmap to that milestone within the next couple of days. I believe today's fix to PR13986 is also a proxy protocol fix (PR16139), but that remains to be tested. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
Re: 2.2.7
Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like for us to consider a release of 2.2.7 in October to address the Windows file handle issues as well some other fixes that would be useful to get out quickly... How about 2 :) I expect to have Windows fixes ready to backport next week after the perlfolk confirm my suggested fixes for pseudo-standard I/O :) So it was my hope to release APR 1.2.12 quite quickly (no apr-util expected but that doesn't mean it wouldn't see some improvements that merit a release), and httpd 2.2.7 promptly. I've been shrinking patches to the minimum LoC to change/review/release and will commit today. I'd love to see another 2.2.8 with more bug fixes late in October or very early November, so that it's the 'best version available' and there would be very little push to make 2.2 better, but shift a bunch of energy to getting somewhere towards 2.4.x or hacking on the Amsterdam branch during our ApacheCon month. Bill
Re: 2.2.7
On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:50 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like for us to consider a release of 2.2.7 in October to address the Windows file handle issues as well some other fixes that would be useful to get out quickly... How about 2 :) I expect to have Windows fixes ready to backport next week after the perlfolk confirm my suggested fixes for pseudo-standard I/O :) So it was my hope to release APR 1.2.12 quite quickly (no apr-util expected but that doesn't mean it wouldn't see some improvements that merit a release), and httpd 2.2.7 promptly. I've been shrinking patches to the minimum LoC to change/review/release and will commit today. I'd love to see another 2.2.8 with more bug fixes late in October or very early November, so that it's the 'best version available' and there would be very little push to make 2.2 better, but shift a bunch of energy to getting somewhere towards 2.4.x or hacking on the Amsterdam branch during our ApacheCon month. Agreed. I see no problem with a 2.2.7 to address known bugs and 2.2.8 to address the (currently) unknown ones :)
Re: 2.2.7
There is the ASF statement/promise: Modules compiled for Apache 2.2 should continue to work for all 2.2.x releases. So I expect that modules have *not* to be new compiled. It is quite confusing for our users en authors have to maintain in most cases up to 4 versions. What about the Magic Number ? Btw. I guess (when I see the downloads) already a few thousands (production) sites are running the 2.2.6 version from the ApacheLounge*. Not a single problem report received, all running well including mod_perl and other mods which are failing with the ASF build. So for this moment the Windows Community has no need to hurry a new 2.2.7. We are also a little afraid that same things can happen as with the unusually closely 2.2.5==2.2.6 process, a broken build. Steffen www.apachelounge.com *not affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation or with the Apache HTTP Server Project - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 18:50 Subject: Re: 2.2.7 Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like for us to consider a release of 2.2.7 in October to address the Windows file handle issues as well some other fixes that would be useful to get out quickly... How about 2 :) I expect to have Windows fixes ready to backport next week after the perlfolk confirm my suggested fixes for pseudo-standard I/O :) So it was my hope to release APR 1.2.12 quite quickly (no apr-util expected but that doesn't mean it wouldn't see some improvements that merit a release), and httpd 2.2.7 promptly. I've been shrinking patches to the minimum LoC to change/review/release and will commit today. I'd love to see another 2.2.8 with more bug fixes late in October or very early November, so that it's the 'best version available' and there would be very little push to make 2.2 better, but shift a bunch of energy to getting somewhere towards 2.4.x or hacking on the Amsterdam branch during our ApacheCon month. Bill
Re: 2.2.7
Not really of my concern. I want to give attention to http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/apache-226/ May be agood time to reconsider the depency for example with APR. Steffen - Original Message - From: Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 21:05 Subject: Re: 2.2.7 There is the ASF statement/promise: Modules compiled for Apache 2.2 should continue to work for all 2.2.x releases. So I expect that modules have *not* to be new compiled. It is quite confusing for our users en authors have to maintain in most cases up to 4 versions. What about the Magic Number ? Btw. I guess (when I see the downloads) already a few thousands (production) sites are running the 2.2.6 version from the ApacheLounge*. Not a single problem report received, all running well including mod_perl and other mods which are failing with the ASF build. So for this moment the Windows Community has no need to hurry a new 2.2.7. We are also a little afraid that same things can happen as with the unusually closely 2.2.5==2.2.6 process, a broken build. Steffen www.apachelounge.com *not affiliated with the Apache Software Foundation or with the Apache HTTP Server Project - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 18:50 Subject: Re: 2.2.7 Jim Jagielski wrote: I'd like for us to consider a release of 2.2.7 in October to address the Windows file handle issues as well some other fixes that would be useful to get out quickly... How about 2 :) I expect to have Windows fixes ready to backport next week after the perlfolk confirm my suggested fixes for pseudo-standard I/O :) So it was my hope to release APR 1.2.12 quite quickly (no apr-util expected but that doesn't mean it wouldn't see some improvements that merit a release), and httpd 2.2.7 promptly. I've been shrinking patches to the minimum LoC to change/review/release and will commit today. I'd love to see another 2.2.8 with more bug fixes late in October or very early November, so that it's the 'best version available' and there would be very little push to make 2.2 better, but shift a bunch of energy to getting somewhere towards 2.4.x or hacking on the Amsterdam branch during our ApacheCon month. Bill
Re: 2.2.7
Steffen wrote: There is the ASF statement/promise: Modules compiled for Apache 2.2 should continue to work for all 2.2.x releases. ***SHOULD*** is the operative word. There are always exceptions. I have a half dozen examples where I've abused the microsoft foundation classes in my code elsewhere, which have been broken by internal changes. Why? Because I dug into the internals instead of staying at the API's documented presentation layer. Of course, this was the only way I could use the MFC's functionality to accomplish what I was trying to do, so I'd balanced the danger of leveraging the internals against the benefits of tweaking the internals. Exploiting a flaw doesn't make it part of the API contract. ABI was not broken, and in fact won't be broken again with my proposed correction. In this case, we have two assumptions, that win32 handles are 'special things' which should behave differently than unix stdin/out/err when the APR refactoring had intended to make that not-the-case. And that you can always emit errors to stderr and record them somewhere, while with the old piped logging code (on ANY platform!) this was not so. Both flaws are corrected, the fallout, IMHO, is a tiny fraction of the user base but must be addressed for those users promptly in another iteration. That's how open sources work. FWIW there is another bit of fallout from keeping a usable stderr stream available at all times; c.f. Bug 43491 which I'm also analyzing for a solution by 2.2.7. So I expect that modules have *not* to be new compiled. It is quite confusing for our users en authors have to maintain in most cases up to 4 versions. What about the Magic Number ? I agree that due to these corrections, the MMN must be bumped with 2.2.7, thank you for raising that point! Btw. I guess (when I see the downloads) already a few thousands (production) sites are running the 2.2.6 version from the ApacheLounge*. Not a single problem report received, all running well including mod_perl and other mods which are failing with the ASF build. Equate downloads with production users? A tiny fraction from the feedback I've received, the majority of windows users who've spoken to me via email, at conferences etc are using windows for two purposes, testing/staging, and learning. There are certainly very robust windows users in production, but those don't correspond to the number of downloads you observe. But that's a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of hits that /dist/httpd/ takes per release, and we can't even most mirror activity! So I'm sure from your downloaders' perspective all is well, but the vast majority looking to httpd for the sources and binaries wouldn't be served by ignoring them. So for this moment the Windows Community has no need to hurry a new 2.2.7. We are also a little afraid that same things can happen as with the unusually closely 2.2.5==2.2.6 process, a broken build. s/the/your/ -- Good to hear, although as Tom suggests - the patches he provided you are 'mysterious' :) When he (and I) thoroughly understand the corrections and the reason they are the 'right' thing, we'll both be satisfied that it's a good thing for -all- users to adopt the patches. This is the process of /developer/ community review, a major shortcoming of many third party offerings (and some commercial products, for that matter). Tom's done a great job of clarifying this to users downloading the package, but I'm afraid your messages aren't so on-target. AFAIK the build was not broken, do you know something I don't? I've tested ./configure; make and nmake -f Makefile.win against a host of versions and OS's and don't recall any failure. Code developed under scrutiny of your peers (in the win32 case, such as Tom, Jorge, Mladen, Randy, etc - even myself) is what the ASF offers, as opposed to what AL has up for download mislabeled as 2.2.6. I don't mean users' testing and observation, I mean people who understand the internals. When your patch happens to work (and you aren't sure why) the first question is to dig deeply, and consult your peers, which is what Tom is engaged in.
Re: 2.2.7
Steffen wrote: I want to give attention to http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/apache-226/ May be agood time to reconsider the depency for example with APR. Actually, I'm a fan of that idea - but not in the httpd 2.2.x cycle. It would be great to see 2.4.0 (3.0.0?) presume the latest APR 1.3.x flavor. If a bug's fixed entirely by APR, why not just grab the freshest APR? Of course you can do that right now, and in many distributions they do (e.g. most OS distributors now have separate apr, apr-util and httpd rpms, packages or depots). I hope we get there some day soon :)
Re: 2.2.7
your patch happens to work (and you aren't sure why) the first question is to dig deeply, and consult your peers, which is what Tom is engaged in. Tom's done a great job of clarifying this to users downloading the package, but I'm afraid your messages aren't so on-target. We are a team in this matter. We adjusting who is posting what, and instruct each other. So all on-target. Planned communication. Below is not discussed with Tom: There we go again Bill with your phrase above. I do not appreciate that you communcate like this in Public, please stop it. More and more I got the impression that you do not want AL in the scene, fine, say it to me personal. You are oh so happy with Tom (we too), you know he is one of the leading at the ApacheLounge team (there are more). I tried to help you/ASF with issues by eg. coordinating communication with Tom and author of mods, it has helped you to get understanding what was going on. What happens you start discussions about feathers etc. and you clutter this list. Till now we (yes) see you as negative promotor of Apache2 on windows. For example, one of the results of you actions is that the Apache feather gives quite some folks a bad feeling. You can understand that my lately experience on this list does not stimulate me anymore to give input to ASF, special it makes no sense to report issues here. BTW. As long as it is working for Windows users they use it, and in common they do not care that a fix is 'mysterious'. The AL 2.2.6 is not mislabeled as 2.2.6. Special for you, I labeled it with patched and there is exactly explained what the patches are. Please do not start a dicussion again which there was with 2.2.5. Steffen - Original Message - From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@httpd.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 21:42 Subject: Re: 2.2.7 Steffen wrote: There is the ASF statement/promise: Modules compiled for Apache 2.2 should continue to work for all 2.2.x releases. ***SHOULD*** is the operative word. There are always exceptions. I have a half dozen examples where I've abused the microsoft foundation classes in my code elsewhere, which have been broken by internal changes. Why? Because I dug into the internals instead of staying at the API's documented presentation layer. Of course, this was the only way I could use the MFC's functionality to accomplish what I was trying to do, so I'd balanced the danger of leveraging the internals against the benefits of tweaking the internals. Exploiting a flaw doesn't make it part of the API contract. ABI was not broken, and in fact won't be broken again with my proposed correction. In this case, we have two assumptions, that win32 handles are 'special things' which should behave differently than unix stdin/out/err when the APR refactoring had intended to make that not-the-case. And that you can always emit errors to stderr and record them somewhere, while with the old piped logging code (on ANY platform!) this was not so. Both flaws are corrected, the fallout, IMHO, is a tiny fraction of the user base but must be addressed for those users promptly in another iteration. That's how open sources work. FWIW there is another bit of fallout from keeping a usable stderr stream available at all times; c.f. Bug 43491 which I'm also analyzing for a solution by 2.2.7. So I expect that modules have *not* to be new compiled. It is quite confusing for our users en authors have to maintain in most cases up to 4 versions. What about the Magic Number ? I agree that due to these corrections, the MMN must be bumped with 2.2.7, thank you for raising that point! Btw. I guess (when I see the downloads) already a few thousands (production) sites are running the 2.2.6 version from the ApacheLounge*. Not a single problem report received, all running well including mod_perl and other mods which are failing with the ASF build. Equate downloads with production users? A tiny fraction from the feedback I've received, the majority of windows users who've spoken to me via email, at conferences etc are using windows for two purposes, testing/staging, and learning. There are certainly very robust windows users in production, but those don't correspond to the number of downloads you observe. But that's a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of hits that /dist/httpd/ takes per release, and we can't even most mirror activity! So I'm sure from your downloaders' perspective all is well, but the vast majority looking to httpd for the sources and binaries wouldn't be served by ignoring them. So for this moment the Windows Community has no need to hurry a new 2.2.7. We are also a little afraid that same things can happen as with the unusually closely 2.2.5==2.2.6 process, a broken build. s/the/your/ -- Good to hear, although as Tom suggests - the patches he provided you are 'mysterious' :) When he (and I) thoroughly understand the corrections
Re: 2.2.7
On Sep 26, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Steffen wrote: There we go again Bill with your phrase above. I do not appreciate that you communcate like this in Public, please stop it. More and more I got the impression that you do not want AL in the scene, fine, say it to me personal. You are oh so happy with Tom (we too), you know he is one of the leading at the ApacheLounge team (there are more). I tried to help you/ASF with issues by eg. coordinating communication with Tom and author of mods, it has helped you to get understanding what was going on. What happens you start discussions about feathers etc. and you clutter this list. Till now we (yes) see you as negative promotor of Apache2 on windows. For example, one of the results of you actions is that the Apache feather gives quite some folks a bad feeling. Steffen, I am getting tired of this rant. You were warned several times about use of the feather in a way that made it look like your personal site was part of the ASF. Same goes for use of the word apache in your domain name. You are actively collecting advertising revenue on the basis of associating yourself with the Apache name and the work of our nonprofit foundation, and I for one do not appreciate that. It was inevitable that one of us would bring it to your attention *again* because you were still violating our previously stated policies, not because Bill was out to get you in any way. Thanks for making the effort this time to remove the feather, with or without the theatrics. In short, stop complaining now. You have not earned it. If you want to participate in problem solving and contributing HERE, in addition to your own private forums, then maybe you will earn that right to complain here as well. Until then, I have no interest in your whining. There would not be a windows version of Apache without Bill's efforts to keep it alive, and there won't be one in the future if windows developers refuse to participate in the development mailing lists HERE. If our changes happen to break a weakly-supported platform, then the solution is to test our changes before they are released by participating in the active development and testing of trunk. Make it better before we release it to the public and you will earn the right to complain when we make a mistake. If you don't want to participate in development, then thank you for reporting problems in our bugzilla. Hopefully, other windows developers will pick up the slack and take your ideas as a good start for contributing. Roy T. Fielding (V.P., Apache HTTP Server)
Re: 2.2.7
Roy really said everything necessary, I hesitated to even respond to you. But I'll offer this so that my frustration is perfectly clear and we (you and I, and for other devs in relation to other service providers as well) can coexist peacefully. Steffen wrote: Tom's done a great job of clarifying this to users downloading the package, but I'm afraid your messages aren't so on-target. We are a team in this matter. We adjusting who is posting what, and instruct each other. So all on-target. Planned communication. Then you missed the point entirely. You spammed to users@ and dev@ with; To inform you. We at http://www.apachelounge.com made a binary available which works with mod-perl and mod-perl etc. That's it. No clarification, nothing w.r.t. the fact that this was no longer Apache 2.2.6 but a hybrid with some fixes that both improve and regress the server. It will be good for some, bad for others and they don't know what they are getting from your spam. I offered; I'd personally encourage anyone who didn't need piped logs to hold back at 2.2.4 till there's a 2.2.7 ready to fly. Tom replied; Definitely! While this set of patches works, and therefore may yield some clues about the mod_perl problem - it remains unexplained *why* it works, so it cannot be considered trustworthy IMHO. There you have it. Tom's statement is clear; this is not more or less good than Apache httpd server 2.2.6, it's simply different, with pros and cons and we weren't sure why. There are certain users who can most definitely benefit from using this binary, and put up with any downside. But he makes that clear to users, you have not. This does not look like coordinated dialog. You do a disservice to the windows user community moving release candidate discussion from the forums where they belong (where the developers will read, react to and solve the problems) off to your own little cabana, rather than encouraging the reports to come right back here (or testers@) where something positive can quickly happen and the issue can be documented for future problem solvers and coders. You do a disservice to the windows user community not calling out the changes to your binaries, or adding the appropriate caveat emptor with respect to your announcement. Tom's done so, much to their benefit. (I'm speaking to your dev/users post, not to the text on your site). And finally, dev@ threads which are a /developer/ community effort are hijaaked to my personal inbox with statements such as I won't discuss code patches on a public list, here's the fix (paraphrasing). This is not helpful, in fact it's orthogonal to the Apache way of doing things. Those threads must be public, my mistakes, bugs, unintended consequences must be public, the solutions should be developed in public where modperl, fcgid, or any other module author can read them. That's how ASF development works. For example, Rudgier and I fixed the same bug at the same time today but - had one of us been off on vacation? It would have been fixed. With the dev discussion off in other places, others can't jump in and just get it solved. So on three counts above, yes, you've raised my frustration level. Your several thousand downloads is tiny overall in contrast to the total number of downloads of the windows package. Your users are (rightfully) quite thankful for the tips/help/service you provide. When suggestions on your forums pan out, and catch folks from google looking for just that answer, they should be appreciative and you can take pride in that. But the user community of httpd is [EMAIL PROTECTED], so don't confuse your niche with the Apache Windows user community or the Apache httpd project. Otherwise? I have /no/ issues with you, your team, AL or your community. Resources like the theserverside, xenocafe, tons of script example sites and of course ApacheLounge can be useful. You provide a service to your users, you let google scrape your site to bring traffic and confused users your way, and when the information posted is correct, everyone benefits. Roy points out he still takes issue with your domain name but I'll let you two work that out. It's the basic issues above on which you've begun to alienate yourself to the devs, repaired that frustration, and are now working to alienate yourself once again. Please address those specific issues, stop painting yourself a martyr for the Windows Users cause, and be welcome at both AL and here at Apache httpd project as a constructive participant. And stop with the spam already on users/dev - you don't see HP, Sun, IBM or even my employer spaming those lists with their products, do you? You are trying to create a community/peer resource/marketing engine etc etc etc, and having fun helping windows users in the process. Here at [EMAIL PROTECTED] we are trying to create a better server, and having fun in the process. As long as we don't splinter the effort of improving httpd server or
