httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>
Subject RE: fate of mod_lbmethod_rr (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.19 as GA)
Date Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:57:54 GMT
+1 for removing from 2.4.x.

Regards

Rüdiger

From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
Sent: Mittwoch, 23. März 2016 02:16
To: httpd
Subject: Re: fate of mod_lbmethod_rr (was: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache httpd 2.4.19 as GA)

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com<mailto:trawick@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 5:03 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net<mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net>>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com<mailto:trawick@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:55 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net<mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net>>
wrote:
Can anyone get mod_lbmethod_rr.c to build?

That's funny actually.  The very first version README.cmake in trunk says that mod_lbmethod_rr.c
doesn't build on Windows

 When I added the .dsp, it certainly did build.  --enable-mods=all should be
triggering the build of those sources.

I think this illustrates that we have played fast and loose with something that
1. is a public API, 2. not experimental, and 3. was illustrated with an example
that has been frequently broken by Major ABI changes.

If devs want to promote an API and then continuously break ABI on trunk,
I'm way beyond arguing with such individuals.  Just a few choice examples
which had necessitated major MMN bumps that did not receive one...

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1560081
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1477649 (no bitwise-alignment assurance)
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1436919 (no bitwise-alignment assurance)

However, this module appears to have been broken prior to 2.4.1 GA with this
at least this commit... http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1209958
... which tells me it is simply an abandoned example.

I propose we remove it from 2.4.x branch and trunk, rather than pretending
we have maintained it?

+1 for removing from 2.4.x branch

no arguments here if someone actually wants it to hang around in trunk, but I don't actually
know if anybody cares so no vote on trunk ATM...

I agree, this discussion is only about 2.4.x branch for the imminent T&R.

If I have a third +1 for removing this horridly wrong example/, I'll commit
in the next 2 hours.  If there is disagreement later, we can always revert.

Bill
Mime
View raw message