Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, ACK. We'd be glad to get it in the official tree. Have a patch against 2.1/cvs that I can review? Not yet - we're just working on 2.0.x. Where are major differences between 2.0 and 2.1 branches ? cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cellphone: +49 174 7066481 - -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- -
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 12:56 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Perhaps a warning on httpd startup should be added to make it clear the
modules are experiemental:
Warning: The perchild module is EXPERIMENTAL, please use at own risk.
That is a little more extreme, but attached is a simple change to the
configure.in to print out another warning when anyone uses an
experimental MPM. This is done at the very very end of the configure
process.
Sample Output:
WARNING: THE 'leader' MPM IS EXPERIMENTAL
The selected MPM might not be fully functional!
Development of this MPM is not complete. Do not use this
MPM unless you are a programmer willing to help fix it.
If you are looking for a stable server, you should not use
the 'leader' MPM until it is moved out of experimental.
Anyone against committing the attached patch?
-Paul Querna
Index: configure.in
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/configure.in,v
retrieving revision 1.267
diff -u -r1.267 configure.in
--- configure.in 2 Sep 2004 17:29:13 - 1.267
+++ configure.in 5 Sep 2004 07:57:42 -
@@ -581,3 +581,22 @@
APACHE_GEN_MAKEFILES
])
+case $MPM_SUBDIR_NAME in
+*experimental*)
+echo
+echo
+echo
+echo WARNING: THE '${APACHE_MPM}' MPM IS EXPERIMENTAL
+echo
+echo The selected MPM might not be fully functional!
+echo
+echo Development of this MPM is not complete. Do not use this
+echo MPM unless you are a programmer willing to help fix it.
+echo
+echo If you are looking for a stable server, you should not use
+echo the '${APACHE_MPM}' MPM until it is moved out of experimental.
+echo
+echo
+echo
+;;
+esac
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 02:02:58 -0600, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 12:56 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: Perhaps a warning on httpd startup should be added to make it clear the modules are experiemental: Warning: The perchild module is EXPERIMENTAL, please use at own risk. That is a little more extreme, but attached is a simple change to the configure.in to print out another warning when anyone uses an experimental MPM. This is done at the very very end of the configure process. Sample Output: WARNING: THE 'leader' MPM IS EXPERIMENTAL The selected MPM might not be fully functional! Development of this MPM is not complete. Do not use this MPM unless you are a programmer willing to help fix it. If you are looking for a stable server, you should not use the 'leader' MPM until it is moved out of experimental. +1
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Paul Querna wrote: Any other opinions about not including these MPMs? Basically agree. But modules are on a sliding scale between fully-working and broken. We have modules/experimental that includes pre-stable stuff that may or may not get fixed within a reasonable timescale: what should their status be? I wouldn't suggest removing them, but perhaps we could flash up a prominent WARNING when you configure/build them? -- Nick Kew
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
Paul Querna wrote: Using perchild as an example, many users see that it is available in 2.0 and try it out. They then complain and make silly posts on Slashdot when it doesn't work. Why include these MPMs if no one is actively working on or supporting them? It doesn't make sense for the 'Stable Branch' to include them at all. Any other opinions about not including these MPMs? The problem seems to be that it is not made clear enough that the modules are in fact experiemental. By taking them out of the tree you are effectively killing development on them, removing the option of someone taking over maintenance of the modules in future. Perhaps a warning on httpd startup should be added to make it clear the modules are experiemental: Warning: The perchild module is EXPERIMENTAL, please use at own risk. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
Am Freitag, 3. September 2004 05:25 schrieb Paul Querna:
Do we want to include the experimental MPMs in the 2.2 GA Branch?
Currently the MPMs in server/mpm/experimental are:
- leader
- perchild
- threadpool
I hope to add the 'event' MPM to this list soon, but I have been
distracted rewriting apr_pollset to better work with multiple threads.
(IE making pollset_{add(),remove()} threadsafe...)
My personal feeling is to *not* include them in the 2.2 branch at this
time. If any of the experimental MPMs are improved to a state we feel
they can be tested, then lets put them back in the GA branch, in the
experimental directory. If after more testing in the GA branch they
prove stable, we can then take them out of experimental.
Using perchild as an example, many users see that it is available in 2.0
and try it out. They then complain and make silly posts on Slashdot when
it doesn't work. Why include these MPMs if no one is actively working on
or supporting them? It doesn't make sense for the 'Stable Branch' to
include them at all.
Any other opinions about not including these MPMs?
Maybe replacing perchild with metuxmpm would be a good idea? metuxmpm does
basically the same, but in fact it works.
What about contacting the developers about integrating metuxmpm in the
official apache tree?
The list is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (subscribe via [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Florian
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
On Sep 2, 2004, at 11:25 PM, Paul Querna wrote: Do we want to include the experimental MPMs in the 2.2 GA Branch? Currently the MPMs in server/mpm/experimental are: - leader - perchild - threadpool My personal feeling is to *not* include them in the 2.2 branch at this time. If any of the experimental MPMs are improved to a state we feel they can be tested, then lets put them back in the GA branch, in the experimental directory. If after more testing in the GA branch they prove stable, we can then take them out of experimental. I'm not sure what you mean... I think that, at the source code level, all experimental modules (whether MPMs or not) should be included (but not *built* when doing packages). After all, the hope is that people try them out and provide fixes, patches, etc... So I am +1 in keeping experimental modules in.
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 18:12 +0200, Matthieu Estrade wrote: Considering some experimental stuff is sometimes stable on some plateform and still experimental because unstable on others, it could be better to keep them in, just for users who want to try and help. If these modules are deleted, some people will refuse to upgrade because they will not find features they need (ex cache or ldap)... I was only talking about the MPMs, not the other experimental Modules. (cache, ldap, etc). These modules are a separate subject. I believe ldap has already been moved out of experimental in 2.1, and mod_cache is going to move out too. -Paul
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 09:55 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'm not sure what you mean... I think that, at the source code level, all experimental modules (whether MPMs or not) should be included (but not *built* when doing packages). I guess I wasn't clear. I would like to keep all of our experimental MPMs in the 2.3 development/CVS HEAD tree. I would like to *not* include them in the 2.2 'stable' general availability branch. After all, the hope is that people try them out and provide fixes, patches, etc... I don't think this has happened recently at all. Just look at perchild, or any of the other experimental MPMs in the 2.0 Branch. People are not providing patches for them. -Paul Querna
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
Paul Querna wrote: On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 18:12 +0200, Matthieu Estrade wrote: Considering some experimental stuff is sometimes stable on some plateform and still experimental because unstable on others, it could be better to keep them in, just for users who want to try and help. If these modules are deleted, some people will refuse to upgrade because they will not find features they need (ex cache or ldap)... I was only talking about the MPMs, not the other experimental Modules. (cache, ldap, etc). These modules are a separate subject. I believe ldap has already been moved out of experimental in 2.1, and mod_cache is going to move out too. Still, the whole idea of having an experimental subdir for all modules is to increase the likely-hood of people playing around with the and to encourage development on them. If the modules that had been in experimental hadn't stayed there, I doubt if work would have been done on them to allow them to graduate :) -- === Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither - T.Jefferson
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
Paul Querna wrote: I don't think this has happened recently at all. Just look at perchild, or any of the other experimental MPMs in the 2.0 Branch. People are not providing patches for them. And people won't ever provide patches for code that isn't there. People are more likely to play around with the prime time code than they are with the developmental code. If the modules appear in v2.2 on an experiemental basis, and they don't work, it might just be the kick the code needs to get some patches flowing in. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
* Florian Lindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, snip Maybe replacing perchild with metuxmpm would be a good idea? metuxmpm does basically the same, but in fact it works. ACK. We'd be glad to get it in the official tree. What about contacting the developers about integrating metuxmpm in the official apache tree? The list is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (subscribe via [EMAIL PROTECTED]) There's also a web page at: http://www.metux.de/mpm/ And a wiki at: http://nibiru.borg.metux.de:7000/wiki.mpm/ cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cellphone: +49 174 7066481 - -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- -
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 18:47 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote: * Florian Lindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, snip Maybe replacing perchild with metuxmpm would be a good idea? metuxmpm does basically the same, but in fact it works. ACK. We'd be glad to get it in the official tree. Have a patch against 2.1/cvs that I can review?
Re: Removing the Experimental MPMs in 2.2?
Whether labeled experimental or not, it's always been very confusing to me that the release (stable) branch has modules in it that developers know don't work at all and therefore should not ever be attempted to be used by any ordinary user in any way whatsoever... Therefore I agree, stable branch, experimental directory shouldn't be a place for known completely hosed and unusable modules, it should be a place for seems to work fine for me, see how it works for you, but this is pretty new and not necessarily as well tested in production on every platform yet so use at your own risk modules. The broken and not yet finished enough for anyone to ever think about using yet even on an experimental basis modules should only be available in the dev branch, experimental directory at least until someone believes they work for at least some people on some platform. Dave Paul Querna wrote: - leader - perchild - threadpool My personal feeling is to *not* include them in the 2.2 branch at this time.
