Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-07 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
On 11/7/2017 8:30 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > If you are thinking of n.n.n-alphan format, how is that going to be mapped > within ap_release.h? Version numbers are cheap, so cycling n.n.n-alpha > to n.n.n+1-alpha hasn't proven to be an issue. +1 Will do that. In context of conversation

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-07 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > This is open for discussion. My opinion: For Alpha, I think it makes sense > to tag from trunk rather than branching first. That is, delay the branching > as long as possible so 2.6 looks as close to trunk for as long

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-07 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
<rainer.j...@kippdata.de> Sent: November 7, 2017 4:07:55 AM CST To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's Hi Steffen, Am 07.11.2017 um 10:10 schrieb Steffen: > Jim wrote below: > > /What, exactly, are the expected differences between trunk and 2.5.0-a

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-07 Thread Rainer Jung
Hi Steffen, Am 07.11.2017 um 10:10 schrieb Steffen: Jim wrote below: /What, exactly, are the expected differences between trunk and 2.5.0-alpha?/ I could not find the answer in this (long) thread ? as far as I understand Daniel, he will tag current trunk as 2.5.0-alpha or more likely

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-07 Thread Steffen
Jim wrote below: What, exactly, are the expected differences between trunk and 2.5.0-alpha? I could not find the answer in this (long) thread ? Steffen On Sunday 05/11/2017 at 14:31, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:03 AM, Steffen wrote: Soon

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-07 Thread Rainer Jung
Although that list is almost 5 years old, people interested for some major differences between trunk and 2.4.x might have a look at: https://home.apache.org/~rjung/patches/possible-backports-httpd-trunk-2_4.txt especially at items 1)-7). Regards, Rainer

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-06 Thread Stefan Eissing
If we get a more automated release process and more frequent releases out of this, for all branches, I am happy. That is in no way to be understood as a critic on the many times Jim has done the RMing. I am curious to learn what will happen to trunk in regards to this and what ABI breaking

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-06 Thread Daniel Ruggeri
On 11/6/2017 12:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> Reiterating again, that we disagree about who our preferred >> approaches are serving and they are disingenuous toward. >> Again, a value judgement. >> > Assuming we go

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
Thx for the clarification. > On Nov 6, 2017, at 2:34 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Jim Jagielski > wrote: >> >>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-06 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> Reiterating again, that we disagree about who our preferred >> approaches are serving and they are disingenuous toward. >> Again, a value

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Reiterating again, that we disagree about who our preferred > approaches are serving and they are disingenuous toward. > Again, a value judgement. > Assuming we go ahead and tag 2.5.0, what is your intention

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-06 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> >> It is safer. It is incredibly time consuming to effectively perform >> a full audit of the state of trunk vs current. If we were to take

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-06 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2017 12:21, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: > >> Sorry Bill, but that's not right. trunk is not a "branch" that directly >>

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-06 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Nov 5, 2017, at 9:39 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2017 12:21, "Jim Jagielski" > wrote: > > Sorry Bill, but that's not right. trunk is not a "branch" that directly leads > to a releasable branch. Its simply

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 11/04/2017 12:51 PM, Steffen wrote: > Thanks Graham, very helpful. > > Question left is when/where is patches/2.4.x and patches/trunk used ? Free > to use ? You do not mention them in the process. > > Resume: > > CTR: trunk > RTC: branches/2.4.x > RTC: 2.5.0-alpha I don't see a

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Nov 5, 2017 11:49, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: Suggested reading; it is interesting to me how many participants of these threads are now absent, and of those who remain, who are sitting on opposite positions of what they held before;

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Nov 5, 2017 12:21, "Jim Jagielski" wrote: Sorry Bill, but that's not right. trunk is not a "branch" that directly leads to a releasable branch. Its simply not. It was not intended to be. You cannot now claim that any inability, or concern, about releasing a RTC "sandbox"

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread Helmut K. C. Tessarek
On 2017-11-05 06:08, Graham Leggett wrote: > Your desire for us to host your private feature branches, and hand out logins > to our infrastructure to people who openly profess not to care about our > projects is not something I would like to see encouraged. You still do not understand what I am

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > It is safer. It is incredibly time consuming to effectively perform > a full audit of the state of trunk vs current. If we were to take this > approach, it seems necessary to revert all of the unaccepted > changes

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Nov 4, 2017, at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >> > > It is safer. It is incredibly time consuming to effectively perform > a full audit of the state of trunk vs current. If we were to take this > approach, it seems necessary to revert all of the unaccepted >

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Nov 5, 2017 10:47, "Eric Covener" wrote: On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Nov 4, 2017 23:18, "Jacob Champion" wrote: > > On Nov 4, 2017 8:44 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: > >>>

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread Eric Covener
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:53 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Nov 4, 2017 23:18, "Jacob Champion" wrote: > > On Nov 4, 2017 8:44 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: > >>> Will it be a fork of latest 2.4.x and trunk things will have to

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek > wrote: > > On 2017-11-04 18:25, Graham Leggett wrote: >> If you aren’t willing to do the four things you’ve mentioned above, >> your code has pretty much disqualified itself from consideration, and >> what you want is

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:03 AM, Steffen wrote: > > Soon we have: > > branches 2.4.x > trunk > 2.5.0-alpha > patches/2.4.x > patches/trunk > > Please a procedure: where and when do we apply patches/fixes. IMO, the ones w/ the LEAST clarity are the ones related to

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-05 Thread Graham Leggett
On 05 Nov 2017, at 4:01 AM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: >> No, you expressed a definite unwillingness to follow our process, >> which starts by creating a patch for trunk. > > I think you misunderstood, at least partly. I don't really care, because > I don't have time to

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Nov 4, 2017 23:18, "Jacob Champion" wrote: On Nov 4, 2017 8:44 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: >> Will it be a fork of latest 2.4.x and trunk things will have to be >> proposed, voted and backported? That is not how httpd has operated previously.

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Jacob Champion
On Nov 4, 2017 8:44 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: >> Will it be a fork of latest 2.4.x and trunk things will have to be >> proposed, voted and backported? That is not how httpd has operated previously. Again, a proposal to change the process and a vote is needed if this is

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> So 2.5.0-alpha will be RTC. Howso? I haven't seen a vote. There can be no 2.5.x-GA. We only deliver

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Helmut K. C. Tessarek
On 2017-11-04 19:18, Graham Leggett wrote: > No, you expressed a definite unwillingness to follow our process, > which starts by creating a patch for trunk. I think you misunderstood, at least partly. I don't really care, because I don't have time to contribute to this project anyway. I was just

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: > On 2017-11-04 18:25, Graham Leggett wrote: >> If you aren’t willing to do the four things you’ve mentioned above, >> your code has pretty much disqualified itself from consideration, and >> what you want is

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Graham Leggett
On 05 Nov 2017, at 12:43 AM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: >> If you aren’t willing to do the four things you’ve mentioned above, >> your code has pretty much disqualified itself from consideration, and >> what you want is largely irrelevant. > > This attitude is exactly

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Luca Toscano
Hi, 2017-11-04 23:43 GMT+01:00 Helmut K. C. Tessarek : > On 2017-11-04 18:25, Graham Leggett wrote: > > If you aren’t willing to do the four things you’ve mentioned above, > > your code has pretty much disqualified itself from consideration, and > > what you want is largely

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Helmut K. C. Tessarek
On 2017-11-04 18:25, Graham Leggett wrote: > If you aren’t willing to do the four things you’ve mentioned above, > your code has pretty much disqualified itself from consideration, and > what you want is largely irrelevant. This attitude is exactly the reason why Apache is losing marketshare

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > So one has to to know trunk if (s)he wants to be a code committer, I > don't know any other project where it's different, changes always go > to current first. Well, I may have spoken too quickly here, there may be

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Graham Leggett
On 04 Nov 2017, at 10:49 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: > Let's say I have a patch for the current version of Apache: 2.4.29. What > now? I have to get it first into 2.5.0 or trunk, which might not even be > compatible? Yes. > So I have to figure out how the code in

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek > wrote: >> >> All I want to do are 2 steps: Commit the patch to the 2.4.x branch (as a >> new feature or patch branch) and send a PR. (X

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Eric Covener
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: > On 2017-11-04 11:43, Eric Covener wrote: >> I'd be surprised if it helped someone who felt overwhelmed by the >> existence of 5 branches in SVN (no offense intended). > > I agree to disagree. Graham's long

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Helmut K. C. Tessarek
On 2017-11-04 11:43, Eric Covener wrote: > I'd be surprised if it helped someone who felt overwhelmed by the > existence of 5 branches in SVN (no offense intended). I agree to disagree. Graham's long explanation which still doesn't cover certain scenarios is for sure a reason why not more people

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Nov 4, 2017 05:04, "Steffen" wrote: Soon we have: branches 2.4.x trunk 2.5.0-alpha patches/2.4.x patches/trunk Please a procedure: *where* and *when* do we apply patches/fixes. I hope not. Trunk tracks new development. There is no distinction between 2.5.x and

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Eric Covener
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Hi, > > So 2.5.0-alpha will be RTC. > Good for me, it is what I personally prefer. It is not clear to me when we'd branch trunk to 2.5 vs. just rolling alphas from trunk. Bill seemed to have the

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Eric Covener
> Why don‘t move to git? It has been discussed a few times, net not much interest from current contributors. Very little activity on the mirror. I'd be surprised if it helped someone who felt overwhelmed by the existence of 5 branches in SVN (no offense intended).

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Eric Covener
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Steffen wrote: > Thanks Graham, very helpful. > > Question left is when/where is patches/2.4.x and patches/trunk used ? Free > to use ? You do not mention them in the process. > > Resume: > > CTR: trunk > RTC: branches/2.4.x > RTC:

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Marion & Christophe JAILLET
Hi, So 2.5.0-alpha will be RTC. Good for me, it is what I personally prefer. Will it be a fork of latest 2.4.x and trunk things will have to be proposed, voted and backported? Or will it be a fork from trunk with things likely never (IMHO) really reviewed? My own opinion is a copy of 2.4.x +

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Steffen
Thanks Graham, very helpful. Question left is when/where is patches/2.4.x and patches/trunk used ? Free to use ? You do not mention them in the process. Resume: CTR: trunk RTC: branches/2.4.x RTC: 2.5.0-alpha ? : patches/2.4.x ? : patches/trunk The RTC is not always followed. I see

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Graham Leggett
On 04 Nov 2017, at 12:03 PM, Steffen wrote: > Soon we have: > > branches 2.4.x > trunk > 2.5.0-alpha > patches/2.4.x > patches/trunk > > Please a procedure: where and when do we apply patches/fixes. When: When you feel your change is appropriate, and when on

Re: We have soon 5 SVN repo's

2017-11-04 Thread Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
> Am 04.11.2017 um 11:03 schrieb Steffen : > > Soon we have: > > branches 2.4.x > trunk > 2.5.0-alpha > patches/2.4.x > patches/trunk > > Please a procedure: where and when do we apply patches/fixes. > Why don‘t move to git? Greets, Stefan Excuse my typo sent from