httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: So what is the real status of 2.1.x...
Date Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:36:51 GMT
At 12:40 PM 3/29/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:22 AM -0700 Brad Nicholes <>
>>Are we BETA yet or not?  I am assuming that the true status is:
>OtherBill has consistently repeated that he will -1 anything entering beta. So, until
he resolves his issues, we're at a standstill.

Well, this beta/nobeta decision is a non-technical vote.  So no,
not a standstill, per say.  Yes my vote was -1 on 2.1.3, both
as a tarball, and a beta candidate.

>My current understanding is that OtherBill's -1 has some thing 
>to do with APR-iconv and nothing at all with httpd.

Yes, iconv is the final significant issue I have with a beta
in principal.  However...

I also had a -host- of issues with 2.1.3, especially pcre changes, 
which I have fixed on svn trunk.  So I was -1 for 2.1.3, period.
If 2.1.3 included the old pcre, why release it?  If it included
those pcre changes, they needed to actually build.

As of my last test, httpd trunk + apr 1.1.x trunk built clean.

Note that there were other apr / apr-util issues, but I believe
all of the remaining bullets except apr-iconv are closed.

I'll take action today on the apr list to ensure we have some
resolution by Friday, such that another tarball could be created,
voted, and perhaps, voted to beta.

Technical question; did we decide it's 2.1.x-beta, or 2.2.0-beta?

>As such, there's absolutely nothing dev@httpd can do

httpd has been doing fine...

> to remove his -1.  Every time I have tried to remove his stated 
>arguments against going beta (I lost count at 4 different rationales 
>against beta), OtherBill suddenly presents more arguments as to why 
>httpd can't enter beta.

Justin, your answer was, with several specific problems to solve,
to shove a tarball down our throats.  Screw that.  Good way
to ensure my -1 your every attempt.

But that's not my purpose, the only rational for my voting is,
is the candidate for beta the best version of httpd available.
I think we made some missteps, that the first httpd 2.0 beta
and release could and should have been a bit more robust.  
I think we lost face with 2.0's early release, and have succeeded 
in regaining it.  I want to avoid repeating that misstep and 
increase our users' confidence.  

Yes, I believe the candidate today falls short.  I believe that
we have several fundamental 2.0-specific issues to address.  And
like you, I've given up, only I've given up that these will make 
it into 2.2.  Such things as more specific filtering semantics
to order filter behavior, etc.  So my only remaining objections 
are on specifics, and only those that should -not- change after 
beta.  That includes the API and which apr we build from.

One, is the use of iconv.  I'm frankly ready to propose we dump
it; it's widely supported only under the GPL, the FreeBSD port
that GNU 'borrowed' is close to death.  I'm hoping to change
that.  And I think there is a better proposal to be offered, 
which I'm tossing to apr this afternoon.

Two, are two Win32 mechanical questions, which I'll toss at the
list under a separate note.  Would be a 15 minute project.

>I still maintain that the current state of trunk is sufficient to branch off 2.2.x (keeping
the branch version at 2.1.x until we go GA with 2.2.0) and consequently bump trunk to 2.3.x
today.  -- justin

And I still see no reason to do that until we vote 2.2.0-beta,
until the day you want to commit something for the 2.4 (or even
for the 3.0 track).  Just as soon as you have anything that fits
that criteria, seems perfectly rational to just jump into svn and
create the new branch.  Copies are cheap, no?

Seems the biggest sticking point is the existence of /trunk, and
what it means.  I'd have no objection to getting rid of that stale 
concept entirely :)

By all means, fork branches/2.3 today.

View raw message