httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing
Date Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:22:58 GMT
From: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Cc: <jim@jaguNET.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 3:43 AM
Subject: Re: 1.3.18 is tagged and rolled, ready for testing


> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:35:03PM -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > > at the usual place: dev.apache.org/dist
> > 
> > looks good on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
> > 
> > got a warning though:
> > 
> > http_vhost.c: In function `fix_hostname':
> > http_vhost.c:712: warning: passing arg 1 of `ap_unescape_url' discards qualifiers
from pointer target type
> 
> Euh... shouldn't we have that looked at? This was caused by a last-minute
> checkin by Dean. Martin already pointed it out on the list, and a couple
> people have mentioned the compiler problem. However, it seems like nobody is
> actually talking about it. Almost as if there is a drive to call it "done"
> despite the problem.

Agreed... those of us bashing on 1.3 to improve it's stability are very excited
to get the fix-of-the-fix-of-the-fix to mod_rewrite out the door.  Perhaps too
excited - although I did point out this error earlier.

> Our past few releases have had little niggly problems here and there. Every
> one of them. It would be nice to get a release that can just sit out there
> for six months. I have a bad feeling that this may be an indicator that
> we're going to have to release another.

I agree with near all of what you said - until you got to this statement.  In the
intervening months between Feb when I jumped on board, and October, there was a
single release in those 8 months.  Which means ... the server was stable?
Not on your life.  We simply didn't 'have it together' - or were lacking motivation
to roll a release.  Look at the bugfix list for 1.3.13/14 - it is far, far too long.

Please suggest we hold to correct this issue.  Please don't suggest that starving off
the pipe of valid corrections for six months is healthy.

> Can we slow down and examine the issue?

I don't have any objection if you want to call for a new tarball and to dump
1.3.18.  I can imagine some third party module that wouldn't expect us to have
manipulated the source string as we have done.

Bill


Mime
View raw message