Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
On 11/4/06, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've been doing some testing and it's looking good. With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260): +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5 I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer. Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be). Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta release cycle in fairly quick order. Jim +1 FreeBSD 6.1p10, Apache 2.2.3 (prefork-mpm), Python 2.4.3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/mod_python/trunk]$ svn info Path: . URL: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_python/trunk Repository Root: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 Revision: 471600 Node Kind: directory Schedule: normal Last Changed Author: jgallacher Last Changed Rev: 471482 Last Changed Date: 2006-11-05 12:01:58 -0600 (Sun, 05 Nov 2006) Properties Last Updated: 2006-05-20 12:39:22 -0500 (Sat, 20 May 2006) -- Jeff Hinrichs Dundee Media & Technology, Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Graham Dumpleton wrote: I want to get the session/cookie changes committed first. Plus I think MODPYTHON-195 (Win32 memory leak) should be fixed. I'll take a look at it today. Also just noticed that one probably can't do: req.handler = None ie., set it to be unset. I can see I might want this for various reasons. :-) Once I have attended to that, only outstanding issue will be documentation updates for new module importer, but that doesn't need to stop a beta being done. I don't completely agree. If the beta gets everyones approval it should go to release without additional changes. Otherwise there should be another testing round. Just to be clear, when I talk about a beta I mean something that gets tagged in svn. Personally, I'd like to avoid the version number inflation we had with 3.2.0. :) There is no reason we can't create a tarball for preliminary testing however. I'd be pretty surprised if we could go directly from trunk to 3.3.0-final anyway. Jim > Graham On 05/11/2006, at 8:35 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote: It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've been doing some testing and it's looking good. With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260): +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5 I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer. Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be). Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta release cycle in fairly quick order. Jim
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
I want to get the session/cookie changes committed first. Also just noticed that one probably can't do: req.handler = None ie., set it to be unset. I can see I might want this for various reasons. :-) Once I have attended to that, only outstanding issue will be documentation updates for new module importer, but that doesn't need to stop a beta being done. Graham On 05/11/2006, at 8:35 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote: It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've been doing some testing and it's looking good. With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260): +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5 I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer. Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be). Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta release cycle in fairly quick order. Jim
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Oops, sorry. I meant to include mention of that issue in my previous email. I agree that it should be fixed for 3.3. Jim Jeff Robbins wrote: I'd really like to see MODPYTHON-195 fixed with what I've tested. It is a WIN32-only bug and fix. Restart of Apache on Win32 leaks one event handle every time if the fix is not applied. We have to run on Windows (long story there) and need to run long term leak-free. Thanks, Jeff - Original Message - From: "Jim Gallacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta? It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've been doing some testing and it's looking good. With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260): +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5 I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer. Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be). Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta release cycle in fairly quick order. Jim
Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
I'd really like to see MODPYTHON-195 fixed with what I've tested. It is a WIN32-only bug and fix. Restart of Apache on Win32 leaks one event handle every time if the fix is not applied. We have to run on Windows (long story there) and need to run long term leak-free. Thanks, Jeff - Original Message - From: "Jim Gallacher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta? It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've been doing some testing and it's looking good. With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260): +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3 +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4 +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5 I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it does still work as long as you are using the legacy importer. Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to 2.0.54, or at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing for version < 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be). Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond a couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for preliminary testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta release cycle in fairly quick order. Jim