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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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. 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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:
> 
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

+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>:
> 

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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?
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]