|
Home > Archive > Apache Mod-Python > January 2006 > 3.2.6b
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 2005-12-28, 5:49 pm |
|
I hope everyone's having a merry Christmas or whatever other holidays
you're celebrating :-)
I haven't been following the list very closely lately, but it looks like
last time 3.2.6b was brought up a bunch of bugs came out of the woodwork.
Does it look like we're near being ready to roll 3.2.6b now?
Grisha
| |
| Nicolas Lehuen 2005-12-28, 5:49 pm |
| Hi Grisha,
Having a look at the bug list I don't see anything that should prevent
us from releasing the 3.2 version. There doesn't seem to be any bug
due to some regression, all the new bugs were also found in 3.1. So I
think we won't disappoint anyone !
I truly think we should not try to be perfect, and make this long due
release of the 3.2 version. We'll have plenty of time later on to fix
the next batch of bugs.
Regards,
Nicolas
2005/12/28, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy <grisha@ispol.com>:
>
> I hope everyone's having a merry Christmas or whatever other holidays
> you're celebrating :-)
>
> I haven't been following the list very closely lately, but it looks like
> last time 3.2.6b was brought up a bunch of bugs came out of the woodwork.
>
> Does it look like we're near being ready to roll 3.2.6b now?
>
> Grisha
>
| |
| Graham Dumpleton 2005-12-28, 5:49 pm |
| I agree with Nicolas, nothing in the new round of issues I have reported
are significant enough to warrant that they be addressed immediately.
Grisha, I have though asked for a small change to be made which will
allow me to make available a proposed new module importer when its done
and for people be able to trial it without having to patch their source
code. See:
http://www.mail-archive.com/python-...g/msg00904.html
for details of what I was proposing.
Would appreciate it if you can indicate either way whether you are okay
with this small change being made or not.
Graham
On 29/12/2005, at 7:01 AM, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Grisha,
>
> Having a look at the bug list I don't see anything that should prevent
> us from releasing the 3.2 version. There doesn't seem to be any bug
> due to some regression, all the new bugs were also found in 3.1. So I
> think we won't disappoint anyone !
>
> I truly think we should not try to be perfect, and make this long due
> release of the 3.2 version. We'll have plenty of time later on to fix
> the next batch of bugs.
>
> Regards,
> Nicolas
>
> 2005/12/28, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy <grisha@ispol.com>:
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2005-12-28, 8:49 pm |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> I hope everyone's having a merry Christmas or whatever other holidays
> you're celebrating :-)
Oh yes indeed. 
>
> I haven't been following the list very closely lately, but it looks like
> last time 3.2.6b was brought up a bunch of bugs came out of the woodwork.
>
> Does it look like we're near being ready to roll 3.2.6b now?
Sound good to me. I have some stuff to do tonight but if there are no
issues that need fixing I can roll a tarball tomorrow (Dec 29).
Jim
| |
| Nicolas Lehuen 2005-12-29, 2:46 am |
| 2005/12/28, Graham Dumpleton <grahamd@dscpl.com.au>:
> Grisha, I have though asked for a small change to be made which will
> allow me to make available a proposed new module importer when its done
> and for people be able to trial it without having to patch their source
> code. See:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/python-...g/msg00904.html
>
> for details of what I was proposing.
>
> Would appreciate it if you can indicate either way whether you are okay
> with this small change being made or not.
>
> Graham
I've tested your patch and of course it doesn't break anything in our
unit tests. I can't see how it can break anything, therefore I've
checked it in in the hope that it will make it for 3.2.6 final.
Grisha, tell me if you disagree with that, I'll roll it back at once.
Regards,
Nicolas
| |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 2005-12-29, 5:47 pm |
|
Even though it seems like a small change, I'm leaning more towards leaving
everything as is, especially if we have enough concensus that 3.2.6 will
be final, not beta. Then we should try to roll-out a 3.3.0 alpha (or
whatever) as soon as possible, and this is where people would begin to
test the new things.
Does that make sense?
Grisha
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> I agree with Nicolas, nothing in the new round of issues I have reported
> are significant enough to warrant that they be addressed immediately.
>
> Grisha, I have though asked for a small change to be made which will
> allow me to make available a proposed new module importer when its done
> and for people be able to trial it without having to patch their source
> code. See:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/python-...g/msg00904.html
>
> for details of what I was proposing.
>
> Would appreciate it if you can indicate either way whether you are okay
> with this small change being made or not.
>
> Graham
>
> On 29/12/2005, at 7:01 AM, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
>
>
| |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 2005-12-29, 5:47 pm |
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
> I've tested your patch and of course it doesn't break anything in our
> unit tests. I can't see how it can break anything, therefore I've
> checked it in in the hope that it will make it for 3.2.6 final.
>
> Grisha, tell me if you disagree with that, I'll roll it back at once.
OK then, lets just leave it in.
Grisha
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2005-12-29, 5:47 pm |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
>
>
>
> OK then, lets just leave it in.
>
> Grisha
>
So are we happy with the state of svn trunk right now? If so I'll roll
the tarball for 3.2.6b.
Jim
| |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 2005-12-29, 5:47 pm |
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
> So are we happy with the state of svn trunk right now? If so I'll roll
> the tarball for 3.2.6b.
Does anyone here have any opinion on whether this release should be marked
as "beta"?
I personally don't know enough to comment, so I'd release it as beta just
to be safe. But if anyone here thinks that that's a waste of our
collective "bandwidth" and we should just release it as a stable release -
let's hear it :-)
Grisha
| |
|
| IMO there will always be bugs, and I think you've all nailed the show
stoppers. Otherwise you'll never get out of beta.
Nick
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
>
>
>
> Does anyone here have any opinion on whether this release should be
> marked as "beta"?
>
> I personally don't know enough to comment, so I'd release it as beta
> just to be safe. But if anyone here thinks that that's a waste of our
> collective "bandwidth" and we should just release it as a stable release
> - let's hear it :-)
>
> Grisha
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2005-12-29, 5:47 pm |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
>
>
>
> Does anyone here have any opinion on whether this release should be
> marked as "beta"?
>
> I personally don't know enough to comment, so I'd release it as beta
> just to be safe. But if anyone here thinks that that's a waste of our
> collective "bandwidth" and we should just release it as a stable release
> - let's hear it :-)
>
> Grisha
>
I'm inclined to going right to a 3.2.6 release. It's not like the code
is completely untested - we've had 6 betas already with the first one
released in August. The difference between 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 is small,
with just a couple of fixes for segfaults that are were not new bugs in
3.2. The behaviour for handling iterables in publisher was also reverted
to the way it was done in 3.1.4.
Let's be bold and release it as 3.2.6 final, and then talk about ways to
speed up the release cycle for bug fixes and new versions.
Jim
For you reference:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-96
Accessing req.boundary causes crash.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-97
mod_python.publisher iterables and content_type broken
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-99
accessing some request or server object members causes a segfault
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2006-01-13, 9:18 pm |
| Howdy gang.
I got distracted by some other stuff for a while there and didn't push
the 3.2.6 forward. So much for the master plan of releasing 3.2 before
the end of 2005. 
There is quite a bit of mail to catch up on, but a quick perusal
indicates that the only outstanding issue that should be included in 3.2
is http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-106.
If this is correct I'll commit Graham's patch tonight and roll the
3.2.6b tarball. Let's try and get 3.2 final out asap.
Jim
| |
| Graham Dumpleton 2006-01-13, 9:18 pm |
| Jim Gallacher wrote ..
> Howdy gang.
>
> I got distracted by some other stuff for a while there and didn't push
> the 3.2.6 forward. So much for the master plan of releasing 3.2 before
> the end of 2005.
>
> There is quite a bit of mail to catch up on, but a quick perusal
> indicates that the only outstanding issue that should be included in 3.2
> is http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-106.
>
> If this is correct I'll commit Graham's patch tonight and roll the
> 3.2.6b tarball. Let's try and get 3.2 final out asap.
The only other candidates that one might seriously consider are:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-105
Simple change and Grisha agreed that should truncate output for HEAD.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-98
Not the whole lot, just item 3 related to the core dump. Some one
else ran up against this in the past couple of weeks since I reported it.
There were a few other things I would have liked to have seen fixed, but
will just have to wait and make sure turn around on next version is quicker. :-)
Graham
| |
| Graham Dumpleton 2006-01-13, 9:18 pm |
| Graham Dumpleton wrote ..
> The only other candidates that one might seriously consider are:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-105
>
> Simple change and Grisha agreed that should truncate output for HEAD.
That should have said "should NOT truncate".
Graham
|
|
|
|
|