Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?

2006-11-05 Thread

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?

2006-11-05 Thread Jim Gallacher

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?

2006-11-04 Thread Graham Dumpleton
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?

2006-11-04 Thread Jim Gallacher
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?

2006-11-04 Thread Jeff Robbins
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