Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of info@apachelounge.com
 designates 213.46.255.22 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <039901c8007f$90690f30$2128c23e@mother>
From: "Steffen" <info@apachelounge.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
References: <C69314BD-56AC-4A0D-866D-6AE8DDCD7269@jaguNET.com>
 <46FA8DEA.8030204@rowe-clan.net> <004601c80070$3e576070$0100a8c0@mother>
 <46FAB60F.9030906@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: 2.2.7
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:53:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> your patch happens to work (and you aren't sure why) the first question is
> to dig deeply, and consult your peers, which is what Tom is engaged in.

> Tom's done a great job of clarifying this to users downloading the
> package,
> but I'm afraid your messages aren't so on-target.

We are a team in this matter.
We adjusting who is posting what,  and instruct each other.

So all on-target. Planned communication.

Below is not discussed with Tom:

There we go again Bill with your phrase above. I do not appreciate that you 
communcate like this in Public, please stop it. More and more I got the 
impression that you do not want AL in the scene, fine, say it to me 
personal. You are oh so happy with Tom (we too), you know he is one of the 
leading at the ApacheLounge team (there are more). I tried to help you/ASF 
with issues by eg. coordinating communication with Tom and author of mods, 
it has helped you to get understanding what was going on. What happens you 
start discussions about feathers etc. and you clutter this list. Till now we 
(yes) see you as negative promotor of Apache2 on windows. For example, one 
of the results of you actions is that the Apache feather gives quite some 
folks a bad feeling.

You can understand that my lately experience on this list does not stimulate 
me anymore to give input to ASF, special it makes no sense to report issues 
here.

BTW.
As long as it is working for Windows users they use it, and in common they 
do not care that a fix is  'mysterious'.

The AL 2.2.6 is not mislabeled as 2.2.6.  Special for you,  I labeled it 
with patched and there is exactly explained what the patches are. Please do 
not start a dicussion again which there was with 2.2.5.

Steffen


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 21:42
Subject: Re: 2.2.7


> Steffen wrote:
>> There is the ASF statement/promise:
>>
>> "Modules compiled for Apache 2.2 should continue to work for all 2.2.x
>> releases."
>
> ***SHOULD*** is the operative word.  There are always exceptions.
>
> I have a half dozen examples where I've abused the microsoft foundation
> classes in my code elsewhere, which have been broken by internal changes.
> Why?  Because I dug into the internals instead of staying at the API's
> documented presentation layer.  Of course, this was the only way I could
> use the MFC's functionality to accomplish what I was trying to do, so I'd
> balanced the danger of leveraging the internals against the benefits of
> tweaking the internals.
>
> Exploiting a flaw doesn't make it part of the API contract.  ABI was not
> broken, and in fact won't be broken again with my proposed correction.
>
> In this case, we have two assumptions, that win32 handles are 'special
> things' which should behave differently than unix stdin/out/err when
> the APR refactoring had intended to make that not-the-case.  And that
> you can always emit errors to stderr and record them somewhere, while
> with the old piped logging code (on ANY platform!) this was not so.
>
> Both flaws are corrected, the fallout, IMHO, is a tiny fraction of the
> user base but must be addressed for those users promptly in another
> iteration.  That's how open sources work.
>
> FWIW there is another bit of fallout from keeping a usable stderr stream
> available at all times; c.f. Bug 43491 which I'm also analyzing for a
> solution by 2.2.7.
>
>> So I expect that modules have *not* to be new compiled. It is quite
>> confusing for our users en authors have to maintain in most
>> cases up to 4 versions. What about the Magic Number ?
>
> I agree that due to these corrections, the MMN must be bumped with 2.2.7,
> thank you for raising that point!
>
>> Btw.
>> I guess (when I see the downloads)  already a few thousands (production)
>> sites are running the 2.2.6 version from the ApacheLounge*. Not a single
>> problem report received, all running well including mod_perl and other
>> mods
>> which are failing with the ASF build.
>
> Equate downloads with production users?  A tiny fraction from the feedback
> I've received, the majority of windows users who've spoken to me via
> email,
> at conferences etc are using windows for two purposes, testing/staging,
> and
> learning.  There are certainly very robust windows users in production,
> but
> those don't correspond to the number of downloads you observe.
>
> But that's a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of hits that
> /dist/httpd/
> takes per release, and we can't even most mirror activity!  So I'm sure
> from
> your downloaders' perspective all is well, but the vast majority looking
> to
> httpd for the sources and binaries wouldn't be served by ignoring them.
>
>> So for this moment the Windows Community has no need to hurry a new
>> 2.2.7.
>> We are also a little afraid that same things can happen as with the
>> unusually closely 2.2.5==>2.2.6 process, a broken build.
>
> s/the/your/ -- Good to hear, although as Tom suggests - the patches he
> provided you are 'mysterious' :)  When he (and I) thoroughly understand
> the corrections and the reason they are the 'right' thing, we'll both be
> satisfied that it's a good thing for -all- users to adopt the patches.
> This is the process of /developer/ community review, a major shortcoming
> of many third party offerings (and some commercial products, for that
> matter).
> Tom's done a great job of clarifying this to users downloading the
> package,
> but I'm afraid your messages aren't so on-target.
>
> AFAIK the build was not broken, do you know something I don't?  I've
> tested
> ./configure; make and nmake -f Makefile.win against a host of versions and
> OS's and don't recall any failure.
>
> Code developed under scrutiny of your peers (in the win32 case, such as
> Tom,
> Jorge, Mladen, Randy, etc - even myself) is what the ASF offers, as
> opposed
> to what AL has up for download mislabeled as 2.2.6.  I don't mean users'
> testing and observation, I mean people who understand the internals.  When
> your patch happens to work (and you aren't sure why) the first question is
> to dig deeply, and consult your peers, which is what Tom is engaged in.
>
>