|
Home > Archive > Apache Mod-Python > June 2006 > mod_python 3.2.9-rc3 test results
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 |
mod_python 3.2.9-rc3 test results
|
|
| Jim Gallacher 2006-06-29, 7:13 am |
| Here are the test results for 3.2.9 release candidate 3.
+1 FreeBSD 6.1 / Apache 2.2 / Python 2.4.3
+1 Linux Debian Sid, apache 2.0.55, Python 2.3.5
Linux (Fedora Core 4) on Intel x86, Apache 2.0.58, Python 2.4.3
+1 Linux Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.0.55, Python 2.4.1
+1 Linux Slackware 10.2, Apache 2.2.0, Python 2.4.1
+1 Linux Zenwalk 2.6, Apache 2.2.2, Python 2.4.3
+1 Mac OS X (PPC/10.4.6), Apache 2.0.55 (mpm/worker), Python 2.3.5 (OS
standard version)
+1 Mac OS X (PPC/10.4.6), Apache 2.2.1 (mpm/worker), Python 2.3.5 (OS
standard version)
+1 MacOSX 10.4.6 Intel, Apache-2.0.55, apache-2.0.55
+1 Windows XP SP2, Apache 2.0.58, ActivePython 2.4.3
Unless there are any objections I'll tag and roll the 3.2.9 tarball
today for a final round of testing. The final tarball will be identical
to 3.2.9-rc3, but with the version strings bumped to 3.2.9.
We should be able to make a public release by the middle of next week.
Jim
| |
| Graham Dumpleton 2006-06-29, 7:13 am |
|
On 29/06/2006, at 9:29 PM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Here are the test results for 3.2.9 release candidate 3.
>
> +1 FreeBSD 6.1 / Apache 2.2 / Python 2.4.3
> +1 Linux Debian Sid, apache 2.0.55, Python 2.3.5
> Linux (Fedora Core 4) on Intel x86, Apache 2.0.58, Python 2.4.3
> +1 Linux Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.0.55, Python 2.4.1
> +1 Linux Slackware 10.2, Apache 2.2.0, Python 2.4.1
> +1 Linux Zenwalk 2.6, Apache 2.2.2, Python 2.4.3
> +1 Mac OS X (PPC/10.4.6), Apache 2.0.55 (mpm/worker), Python 2.3.5 (OS
> standard version)
> +1 Mac OS X (PPC/10.4.6), Apache 2.2.1 (mpm/worker), Python 2.3.5 (OS
> standard version)
> +1 MacOSX 10.4.6 Intel, Apache-2.0.55, apache-2.0.55
> +1 Windows XP SP2, Apache 2.0.58, ActivePython 2.4.3
>
> Unless there are any objections I'll tag and roll the 3.2.9 tarball
> today for a final round of testing. The final tarball will be
> identical
> to 3.2.9-rc3, but with the version strings bumped to 3.2.9.
>
> We should be able to make a public release by the middle of next week.
Thanks for pushing this through Jim.
In respect of testing in the future, can everyone make a note though
which
MPM, ie., worker or prefork , they are using when testing on UNIX like
system. I would feel much more comfortable if I know there is a mix of
prefork and worker across the range of UNIX like systems.
Thanks.
Graham
| |
| Jim Gallacher 2006-06-29, 7:13 am |
| Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
> On 29/06/2006, at 9:29 PM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for pushing this through Jim.
>
> In respect of testing in the future, can everyone make a note though which
> MPM, ie., worker or prefork , they are using when testing on UNIX like
> system. I would feel much more comfortable if I know there is a mix of
> prefork and worker across the range of UNIX like systems.
Good point. In the future when I send an email to the list requesting a
round of testing I'll include a reminder.
Jim
| |
| Jorey Bump 2006-06-29, 1:12 pm |
| Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
These 3 were all prefork.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Good point. In the future when I send an email to the list requesting a
> round of testing I'll include a reminder.
>
> Jim
|
|
|
|
|