|
Home > Archive > Apache Mod-Python > January 2006 > please set up a mod_python core group
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]
| Author |
please set up a mod_python core group
|
|
| Roy T. Fielding 2006-01-18, 5:47 pm |
| It looks like mod_python is making good progress and everyone
is collaborating in the Apache way of testing and voting.
That's great!
Unfortunately, I have almost no insight into who these great people
are that are doing the RM task and testing and voting and preparing
for a next release. That's not so great, since it is my job (as
VP of Apache HTTP Server Project) to be sure that the ASF knows all
this work is being done in its name and so that all of the people
doing it are appropriately recognized for their work.
So, please, take a few moments to decide amongst yourselves who
should have binding votes on mod_python (i.e., who has earned it),
keeping in mind that you need at least three binding +1 votes in
order to make any release at Apache, and send me a list of names
and email addresses of those people so that I can properly
record them in our records.
Cheers,
Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
for the Apache HTTP Server PMC
| |
| Jorey Bump 2006-01-18, 8:46 pm |
| Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> It looks like mod_python is making good progress and everyone
> is collaborating in the Apache way of testing and voting.
> That's great!
>
> Unfortunately, I have almost no insight into who these great people
> are that are doing the RM task and testing and voting and preparing
> for a next release. That's not so great, since it is my job (as
> VP of Apache HTTP Server Project) to be sure that the ASF knows all
> this work is being done in its name and so that all of the people
> doing it are appropriately recognized for their work.
>
> So, please, take a few moments to decide amongst yourselves who
> should have binding votes on mod_python (i.e., who has earned it),
> keeping in mind that you need at least three binding +1 votes in
> order to make any release at Apache, and send me a list of names
> and email addresses of those people so that I can properly
> record them in our records.
I vote that Grisha gets all three votes. Benevolent dictatorship is the
Python way, after all.
| |
| Graham Dumpleton 2006-01-18, 8:46 pm |
| Jorey Bump wrote ..
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> I vote that Grisha gets all three votes. Benevolent dictatorship is the
> Python way, after all.
But wait, I see at least two different bugs in that and half a dozen other
features that should be incorporated.
Ahhh, always the one to cause problems aren't I. ;-)
Graham
| |
| Jorey Bump 2006-01-18, 8:46 pm |
| Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Jorey Bump wrote ..
>
> But wait, I see at least two different bugs in that and half a dozen other
> features that should be incorporated.
In that case, to keep it clear, I vote for Bruce, Bruce, and... Bruce. 
| |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 2006-01-19, 2:46 am |
|
Thanks Roy. Very timely, since 3.2.6 is (so far) going to be a
final/stable release.
I propose that for starters those people are:
me (I'm also in the Apache HTTP Server PMC)
Jim Gallacher
Nicolas Lehuen
Graham Dumpleton
Just to clarify this a bit - I think a +1 on successful test for a
particular OS/whatever combination from any of the above people is NOT the
same as the "binding +1" Roy's referring to. So when we're done collecting
+1's which are just test results from subscribers of the list (and any
subscriber can send a +1), then at least 3 of the above list need to agree
that we have sufficient approval to go ahead with the release.
Roy - could you confirm this makes sense?
Grisha
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> It looks like mod_python is making good progress and everyone
> is collaborating in the Apache way of testing and voting.
> That's great!
>
> Unfortunately, I have almost no insight into who these great people
> are that are doing the RM task and testing and voting and preparing
> for a next release. That's not so great, since it is my job (as
> VP of Apache HTTP Server Project) to be sure that the ASF knows all
> this work is being done in its name and so that all of the people
> doing it are appropriately recognized for their work.
>
> So, please, take a few moments to decide amongst yourselves who
> should have binding votes on mod_python (i.e., who has earned it),
> keeping in mind that you need at least three binding +1 votes in
> order to make any release at Apache, and send me a list of names
> and email addresses of those people so that I can properly
> record them in our records.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roy T. Fielding <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
> for the Apache HTTP Server PMC
>
| |
| Nicolas Lehuen 2006-01-19, 2:46 am |
| Hi,
It's OK for me !
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/1/19, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy <grisha@apache.org>:
>
> Thanks Roy. Very timely, since 3.2.6 is (so far) going to be a
> final/stable release.
>
> I propose that for starters those people are:
>
> me (I'm also in the Apache HTTP Server PMC)
> Jim Gallacher
> Nicolas Lehuen
> Graham Dumpleton
>
> Just to clarify this a bit - I think a +1 on successful test for a
> particular OS/whatever combination from any of the above people is NOT th=
e
> same as the "binding +1" Roy's referring to. So when we're done collectin=
g
> +1's which are just test results from subscribers of the list (and any
> subscriber can send a +1), then at least 3 of the above list need to agre=
e
> that we have sufficient approval to go ahead with the release.
>
> Roy - could you confirm this makes sense?
>
> Grisha
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>
| |
| Mike Looijmans 2006-01-19, 2:46 am |
| +1
:o)
Seriously, I think Grisha's way is right - the three musketeers should
decide based on the feedback they get. There's no substitute for running
on other people's machines...
--
Mike Looijmans
Philips Natlab / Topic Automation
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi,
>
> It's OK for me !
>
> Regards,
> Nicolas
>
> 2006/1/19, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy <grisha@apache.org>:
>
| |
| Jorey Bump 2006-01-19, 5:49 pm |
| Mike Looijmans wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Seriously, I think Grisha's way is right - the three musketeers should
> decide based on the feedback they get. There's no substitute for running
> on other people's machines...
>
+1 here, but since the build process and typical MPM differs among
platforms, could we see a list that this group represents? I'm most
interested in default nonvirtualized environments used in production or
for principal development. This information will be useful when
reviewing release candidates, to make sure we haven't overlooked any key
platforms.
IOW, could you guys list the OS on which you run, and not merely test,
mod_python?
| |
| Nicolas Lehuen 2006-01-19, 5:49 pm |
| Building + unit testing :
* mod_python on Windows 2000 Server SP4 + ActivePython 2.3.5 + Apache 2=
..0.55
* mod_python on Windows XP SP2 + ActivePython 2.4.2 + Apache 2.0.55
Developing (mod_python itself + my own applications):
* mod_python on Windows XP SP2 + ActivePython 2.4.2 + Apache 2.0.55
Production servers :
* mod_python on Windows 2000 Server SP4 + ActivePython 2.4.1 +
Apache 2.0.55
Yes that's a weird production setting but :
1) I need MS SQL Server 2000 and its nice & cheap OLAP extensions.
2) I love Python
3) I still have to maintain some applications running under PHP
4) I need to have a single server which handles PHP, SVN and
mod_python so Apache is a must, I cannot use IIS
Regards,
Nicolas
I'm using mod_python for Python 2.4 on Windows XP for developement, and on =
Win
2006/1/19, Jorey Bump <list@joreybump.com>:
> Mike Looijmans wrote:
>
g[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> +1 here, but since the build process and typical MPM differs among
> platforms, could we see a list that this group represents? I'm most
> interested in default nonvirtualized environments used in production or
> for principal development. This information will be useful when
> reviewing release candidates, to make sure we haven't overlooked any key
> platforms.
>
> IOW, could you guys list the OS on which you run, and not merely test,
> mod_python?
>
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2006-01-19, 5:49 pm |
| Jorey Bump wrote:
> Mike Looijmans wrote:
>
>
>
> +1 here, but since the build process and typical MPM differs among
> platforms, could we see a list that this group represents? I'm most
> interested in default nonvirtualized environments used in production or
> for principal development. This information will be useful when
> reviewing release candidates, to make sure we haven't overlooked any key
> platforms.
>
> IOW, could you guys list the OS on which you run, and not merely test,
> mod_python?
>
By you guys I assume you mean the above 4 people? I'm not sure how
relevant this is since looking at that information from just 4 people is
too small a sample to determine if the code is ready for release.
Hopefully Roy will clarify, but I see the role of the core group more as
meta voters, where we vote on the voting. So in theory, the core group
could vote for a release even if none of them has ever actually compiled
or used mod_python.
On the other hand, you may mean *all* the people on python-dev who test
a release candidate should list their production platform. This would be
useful to the core group as another data point in deciding on casting
a binding vote to proceed to release.
That being said, I do eat my own dogfood, so here is my setup:
Development and testing (mod_python and my own stuff):
Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.0.55 mpm-prefork, Python 2.3.5
Testing (mod_python only, using qemu)
Linux Debian stable (sarge), Apache 2.0.54 mpm-prefork, Python 2.3.4
Linux Debian stable (sarge), Apache 2.0.54 mpm-worker, Python 2.3.4
Production
Linux Debian stable (sarge), Apache 2.0.54 mpm-prefork, Python 2.3.4
Similar to Nicolas, I need mpm-prefork as there are some php
applications on the production server.
Your point on making sure we don't overlook any key platforms in our
testing is a good one. Should we (python-dev people) put together a list
of key platforms as a future guide? It's likely a good idea, even at
the risk of a flamewar. ;) I thought I'd put together a summary of 3.2.6
test results in the next few days anyway, which should be a good
starting point for the key list.
Jim
| |
| Jorey Bump 2006-01-19, 5:49 pm |
| Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Jorey Bump wrote:
>
> By you guys I assume you mean the above 4 people?
Yeah, youse 4 guys.
> On the other hand, you may mean *all* the people on python-dev who test
> a release candidate should list their production platform. This would be
> useful to the core group as another data point in deciding on casting a
> binding vote to proceed to release.
No, I'm just interested in the core group. Everyone else gets an
opportunity to list platforms when testing new releases, in pass/fail
feedback responses.
> Your point on making sure we don't overlook any key platforms in our
> testing is a good one. Should we (python-dev people) put together a list
> of key platforms as a future guide? It's likely a good idea, even at
> the risk of a flamewar. ;) I thought I'd put together a summary of 3.2.6
> test results in the next few days anyway, which should be a good
> starting point for the key list.
A small checklist might be useful, such as Windows/Mac/Linux/UNIX/BSD.
This has been handled fairly well in the past, but that might be due to
luck. I'm concerned that some last minute fix will be checked into a
stable release candidate without sufficient cross-platform testing. I
mainly use Python in UNIX-like environments, and I forget how popular it
is on Windows (the same goes for Apache).
Ideally, it would be nice to solicit feedback from package maintainers.
I use Slackware, which doesn't include Apache 2 or mod_python, so I can
tell immediately how it's going to perform in my production systems.
Users of stock Red Hat, Debian, SUSE, Mandriva, FreeBSD, Mac, etc. can't
be so sure. The package maintainers are in the best position to flag
potential problems. But this is an issue shared by many open source
projects, and we'll need to be satisfied with the participation we get,
and try our best to create a stable release.
| |
|
| Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Jorey Bump wrote:
>
> Your point on making sure we don't overlook any key platforms in our
> testing is a good one. Should we (python-dev people) put together a list
> of key platforms as a future guide? It's likely a good idea, even at
> the risk of a flamewar. ;) I thought I'd put together a summary of 3.2.6
> test results in the next few days anyway, which should be a good
> starting point for the key list.
As a non-x86 user (amd64 here), I second the notion that we need some
non-Linux non-x86 platform testing out there, if people were willing to
commit to be available to build and test when that time comes around (I
think it's been pretty good, about every 2 months it's been on average?).
I know there are people on PPC OSX, FreeBSD, AIX, Tru64, Solaris, and I just
think it's a good idea to have a general concensus that a build will work on
at least some of these platforms that both apache and Python are also
supported and has worked for in the past. I'm not sure which of these you
can identify as "key," but I would say that *BSD, OSX and Solaris should top
the list. I also suggest Linux x86_64 of some kind, since it's becoming
more and more widely used; I know we've got 2 or 3 people that normally
respond to release tests that do.
Nick
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2006-01-19, 5:49 pm |
| Jorey Bump wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah, youse 4 guys.
>
>
>
> No, I'm just interested in the core group. Everyone else gets an
> opportunity to list platforms when testing new releases, in pass/fail
> feedback responses.
>
>
>
> A small checklist might be useful, such as Windows/Mac/Linux/UNIX/BSD.
> This has been handled fairly well in the past, but that might be due to
> luck. I'm concerned that some last minute fix will be checked into a
> stable release candidate without sufficient cross-platform testing. I
> mainly use Python in UNIX-like environments, and I forget how popular it
> is on Windows (the same goes for Apache).
Between the 4 I think we good coverage of your checklist, except for the
non-BSD Unix category. This is one where we really need to depend on
those in our community to help out with the testing, which of course
they do.
> Ideally, it would be nice to solicit feedback from package maintainers.
I asked a few months ago if there were any package maintainers
monitoring this list but there was no response. At the time I wondered
if *we* should make contact with the downstream maintainers but others
here felt that was not our job (IIRC).
> I use Slackware, which doesn't include Apache 2 or mod_python, so I can
> tell immediately how it's going to perform in my production systems.
> Users of stock Red Hat, Debian, SUSE, Mandriva, FreeBSD, Mac, etc. can't
> be so sure. The package maintainers are in the best position to flag
> potential problems. But this is an issue shared by many open source
> projects, and we'll need to be satisfied with the participation we get,
> and try our best to create a stable release.
For whatever reason mod_python issues get logged in the various the
distribution's bug tracking systems but never propagate upstream.
Perhaps people here that have an interest in a particular platform could
get in the habit of occasionally checking these other bug trackers for
mod_python issues and alert the python-dev list? Or maybe we could have
tracking the bug trackers day. Once every couple of months we'd declare
a bug tracking day and everyone here could run around looking for
trouble on the other bug trackers?
Jim
| |
| Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 2006-01-19, 5:49 pm |
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Jorey Bump wrote:
> +1 here, but since the build process and typical MPM differs among platforms,
> could we see a list that this group represents?
This group would not represent any platforms when acting in _this_
capacity. One of the group's responsibility would be to decide whether
sufficient number of platforms were represented by tests done by anyone on
this mailing list (including anyone from this group, of course).
Grisha
| |
| Greg Stein 2006-01-22, 8:50 pm |
| On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:01:07PM -0500, Jorey Bump wrote:
>...
>...
> I vote that Grisha gets all three votes. Benevolent dictatorship is the
> Python way, after all.
But that isn't how Apache works. Therefore, it is a non-starter.
Cheers,
-g
| |
| Greg Stein 2006-01-22, 8:50 pm |
| On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:04:43PM -0500, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Jorey Bump wrote:
>
>
> This group would not represent any platforms when acting in _this_
> capacity. One of the group's responsibility would be to decide whether
> sufficient number of platforms were represented by tests done by anyone on
> this mailing list (including anyone from this group, of course).
Right. The +1 votes for a release simply represents the view, "is this
codebase ready for a release?" Whatever measures may apply is
completely irrelevant. If those with binding votes want to say +1 just
because it is Tuesday, then fine. But they're responsible for the
outcome, so I'm sure they'll want to take a little more caution.
What we're talking about is "who sets the direction? who has the final
say? who defines what mod_python is really about?"
Cheers,
-g
|
|
|
|
|