Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CC1B410A16 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:55:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7676 invoked by uid 500); 26 Aug 2015 15:55:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 7605 invoked by uid 500); 26 Aug 2015 15:55:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 7590 invoked by uid 99); 26 Aug 2015 15:55:19 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:55:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id AD8BEC0250 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:55:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6v4g2SLoyNxT for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:55:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 05C8542F2E for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:55:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so23925753iod.3 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:55:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=DNiFv2+YyN+WXL/8eM8tw3qIqOgqcKfmcRU9oOXJPn0=; b=dYN9abYTlyiiPVWMgl8lTQe/ZWCxT7+CPj/N4cCCbQ5zzHdIQp0MBUb3ujlhddkDqj WhbWSP2RY9y44/usx7cC0k0t1yNWew90RxFPd+zkw0QqhGEPwLYK7KA60k5/FO/XtlYw lGnM5DjAbJf9GP4xQLzfT6z835hmJ5OkBykjWs68pTgydFtqFVX+HWNgdKrdAKSUO/8d 776ulUjwSpzAU7ZxA5rvN1BRlVIJ6Mvj/FUeBJ1RDQ1trPvrgwEC8D3JJT3miE9Vol0H Krlpu1FTYM5p29n7mpYYqUqWEo8RO2llL1qlr/qEiEC9I2Fs2UYXteC4zgIOQCb76c4B aFig== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnnRIPGOrYOO5HIARmvP8unFqtq2ILCxHkWRlrbtBrjOu+uS3RqrFvEIho9JJhGzHFjTvYt MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.32.72 with SMTP id g69mr4500985iog.86.1440604509431; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.16.8 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:55:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [76.252.112.72] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:55:09 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: proposed backport, mod_h2 github release From: William A Rowe Jr To: httpd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140aebe0c2948051e38e0e4 --001a1140aebe0c2948051e38e0e4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:20 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Stefan Eissing < > stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> wrote: > >> I just submitted my first backport STATUS update. Hope I did everything >> ok, otherwise please let me know. >> >> For backporting mod_h2 to 2.4.x, I decided to make it in two parts: one >> is the patch to core/mod_ssl that introduces Protocols. That is now in >> STATUS. >> >> Next would be a patch for modules/http2 which is basically all source >> files, changes in build and docs. Since there are many new files, does it >> sense to make a patch for that or do we handle that differently? >> >> Also: since there were some people testing the github releases in their >> own setups, I thought it helpful to let them test the core patch and mod_h2 >> as it currently is. I made a new release of mod_h2 on github which >> basically downloads httpd 2.4.16, applies the core patch and builds the >> mod_h2 copy against it. Hopefully some people take it out for a spin and >> report back > > > Looking forward to reviewing the code this week! > > At the moment, I'm dubious that we are going to be able to meet the > criteria that modules built for httpd 2.4.x will continue to function > correctly without recompilation under 2.4+refactoring, but that's an > absolute requirement of our versioning promises. In such a case, 2.6.x (or > 3.0.0) would become a top priority. So there's that to consider. > > I'd like to RM a 2.5.0-alpha release on Friday 11 Sept, that would put the > mod_h2 + refactoring into the hands of bleeding edge adopters, ahead of the > ApacheCon Core in Budapest. We make no promises about the API between > 2.5.0 and 2.5.x and users are expected to recompile their modules while > working on that bleed branch. > Moving feedback back to the backport considerations thread... > > Btw. if you review the core_protocols.patch and find anything preventing a backport, please let me know asap. I personally would like to avoid a repeat of the ALPN back porting stop due to lack of time to find a proper solution. Of course! The underlying guideline is that all modules built for 2.4.16, blissfully unaware of the 'future' Protocols schema, still "just work" without recompilation or reconfiguration. If this proves impossible, the backport solution is probably to keep H2Protocols in place on any legacy module, and reserve the generic Protocols for trunk and future releases. ASF mod_ftp is an example of an alternate protocol provider that (as of trunk flavor) should still just work. It happens to be the most convenient for me to compare, but is by no means the only example. I have a couple patches to integrate before proposing a mod_ftp 1.0.1 tag for a release vote, but expect to immediately afterwards start to integrate the proposed Protocols behavior in httpd trunk, and be ahead of the game this round rather than behind in the case of 2.4.x :) --001a1140aebe0c2948051e38e0e4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:20 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net= > wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at= 8:44 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de><= /span> wrote:
I just submitted my first backport STATUS= update. Hope I did everything ok, otherwise please let me know.

For backporting mod_h2 to 2.4.x, I decided to make it in two parts: one is = the patch to core/mod_ssl that introduces Protocols. That is now in STATUS.=

Next would be a patch for modules/http2 which is basically all source files= , changes in build and docs. Since there are many new files, does it sense = to make a patch for that or do we handle that differently?

Also: since there were some people testing the github releases in their own= setups, I thought it helpful to let them test the core patch and mod_h2 as= it currently is. I made a new release of mod_h2 on github which basically = downloads httpd 2.4.16, applies the core patch and builds the mod_h2 copy a= gainst it. Hopefully some people take it out for a spin and report back

Looking forward to reviewing the code t= his week!

At the moment, I'm dubious that we a= re going to be able to meet the criteria that modules built for httpd 2.4.x= will continue to function correctly without recompilation under 2.4+refact= oring, but that's an absolute requirement of our versioning promises.= =C2=A0 In such a case, 2.6.x (or 3.0.0) would become a top priority.=C2=A0 = So there's that to consider.

I'd like to R= M a 2.5.0-alpha release on Friday 11 Sept, that would put the mod_h2 + refa= ctoring into the hands of bleeding edge adopters, ahead of the ApacheCon Co= re in Budapest.=C2=A0 We make no promises about the API between 2.5.0 and 2= .5.x and users are expected to recompile their modules while working on tha= t bleed branch.

Moving feedback back to the = backport considerations thread...

> > Btw. if you review = the core_protocols.patch and find anything preventing a backport, please le= t me know asap. I personally would like to avoid a repeat of the ALPN back = porting stop due to lack of time to find a proper solution.

Of course!=C2=A0 The und= erlying guideline is that all modules built for 2.4.16,=C2=A0blissfully=C2= =A0unaware of the 'future' Protocols schema, still "just work&= quot; without recompilation or reconfiguration.=C2=A0 If this proves imposs= ible, the backport solution is probably to keep H2Protocols in place on any= legacy module, and reserve the generic Protocols for trunk and future rele= ases.

ASF mod_ftp is an example of an alternate prot= ocol provider that (as of trunk flavor) should still just work.=C2=A0 It ha= ppens to be the most convenient for me to compare, but is by no means the o= nly example.=C2=A0 I have a couple patches to integrate before proposing a = mod_ftp 1.0.1 tag for a release vote, but expect to immediately afterwards = start to integrate the proposed Protocols behavior in httpd trunk, and be a= head of the game this round rather than behind in the case of 2.4.x :)










<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
=

--001a1140aebe0c2948051e38e0e4--