perl-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Kaluza <jkal...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Current httpd24threading branch problems?
Date Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:46:49 GMT
On 04/17/2014 09:15 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
> On 17 April 2014 07:46, Jan Kalu┼ża <jkaluza@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> could you please sum up what's the current state of httpd24threading branch?
>> I think you're the only one currently who knows what has to be done before
>> we can release it somehow.
>>
>> I've tried to read the mailing list to refresh my memory, but I'm not sure
>> what has been fixed/done already during these 3 months.
>>
>
> I think it's mostly been me and you working on it, actually!

Oops, sorry! :)

> I've said before that I need to fix some Windows test failures and
> then (assuming *nix doesn't have any outstanding of its own) I'll be
> happy to merge this branch into trunk and we can get a release going.

Ok, I will re-run the tests with latest httpd24threading next week on 
Fedora and write my findings here.

> My current list of failures is:
>
> Test Summary Report
> -------------------
> t\compat\conn_rec.t                   (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 0)
> [new failure for 2.4.x]
>    Parse errors: Bad plan.  You planned 4 tests but ran 2.
> t\modperl\local_env.t                 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed: 1)
>    Failed test:  6
> t\modperl\merge.t                     (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed: 3)
>    Failed tests:  3, 6, 9
> t\modperl\merge2.t                    (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed: 3)
>    Failed tests:  3, 6, 9
> t\modperl\merge3.t                    (Wstat: 0 Tests: 10 Failed: 3)
>    Failed tests:  3, 6, 9
> t\modules\cgi.t                       (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed: 5)
>    Failed tests:  1-5
> t\modules\cgi2.t                      (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed: 5)
>    Failed tests:  1-5
> t\modules\cgipost.t                   (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed: 5)
>    Failed tests:  2-6
> t\modules\cgipost2.t                  (Wstat: 0 Tests: 6 Failed: 5)
>    Failed tests:  2-6
> t\modules\cgiupload.t                 (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 2)
> [with LWP only]
>    Failed tests:  1-2
> t\modules\cgiupload2.t                (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 2)
> [with LWP only]
>    Failed tests:  1-2
> t\protocol\echo_block.t               (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 2)
> [new failure for 2.4.x]
>    Failed tests:  2-3
> t\protocol\echo_nonblock.t            (Wstat: 0 Tests: 3 Failed: 1)
> [new failure for 2.4.x]
>    Failed test:  2
> t\protocol\echo_timeout.t             (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed: 4)
> [new failure for 2.4.x]
>    Failed tests:  2-5
> t\protocol\pseudo_http.t              (Wstat: 0 Tests: 13 Failed: 9)
>   [new failure for 2.4.x]
>    Failed tests:  3-8, 11-13
> Files=252, Tests=2938, 848 wallclock secs ( 2.26 usr +  0.36 sys =  2.62 CPU)
>
> The ones marked 'new failure for 2.4.x' fail with 2.4.x but not with
> 2.2.x so they are particularly worrying for 2.4.x support, but note
> also that *none* of the above tests fail with 2.2.x when using trunk
> (or mod_perl-2.08), which is also quite worrying.
>
> What is the current state of play on *nix? Which tests, if any, fail using:
>
> (1) httpd24threading + httpd-2.4.x
> (2) httpd24threading + httpd-2.2.x
> (3) trunk (or mod_perl-2.08) + httpd 2.2.x
>
> ?

As said above, I will answer these questions next week, it will take 
some time to try all combinations.

> If you have failures in (1) that aren't in (2), or failures in either
> that aren't in (3) then we need eyes on them to try to get them fixed.
> Perhaps *nix people could focus on failures that are common between
> *nix and Windows, and I'll focus on Windows failures that aren't seen
> on *nix?

That sounds like a plan. I definitely won't fix any Windows-only 
failures (no machine, no knowledge), but I'm happy to fix *nix specific 
problems. Unfortunately, I *think* that most of the broken tests are 
Windows specific, but lets see once I will try latest httpd24threading 
branch.

> If we can't fix things any time soon then perhaps we should take a
> vote on whether to release as-is, with documentation updated to note
> the currently known problems?

That's mostly question of whether we want to fully support Windows. Last 
time I've checked there were no failing tests on Linux and if I remember 
well, mod_perl in Linux with httpd-2.4 was not in bad shape.

I have no idea how hard will it be to fix Windows-specific errors, but 
if it won't be possible to fix them in some sensible time, I would vote 
for releasing some rc without windows support or say that 2.0.9 is not 
going to work with httpd-2.4 on Windows (while keeping 2.0.9 and 
httpd-2.2 still supported on Windows).

> I am keen to see a mod_perl-2.09 with httpd-2.4.x support, but not if
> it's in a buggy state (especially on *nix) that will just generate a
> ton of bug reports and disappointed users.

Lets see what's the current state of it next week, but I think there 
won't be any big show-stoppers on Linux. At least it works reasonably 
well in Fedora.

Regards,
Jan Kaluza



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org


Mime
View raw message