As Jim pointed out a while back, we need to get going on mod_python 3.3
before I fill up JIRA with another page of bug reports or suggestions.

That said, how do we want to proceed on this? Do we want to draw up an
initial list of things to do with priorities, discuss them to make sure
all are okay with the fix or what is proposed, possibly assign them to
individuals, and then get started? Or even before that, do we want to
state general aims about what we want to address in mod_python 3.3?
Do we want to focus only on addressing bugs again, or look at some new
features as well?

By then I might have got my SVN access sorted out. Have account, but
haven't as yet tried a check out using it.

BTW, I still don't have priviledges in JIRA to administer entries, ie.,
assign etc. Do I need/want that? How do I get that set up?

Graham

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> As Jim pointed out a while back, we need to get going on mod_python 3.3
> before I fill up JIRA with another page of bug reports or suggestions.

I think you already *have* filled another page since I made that comment. ;)

> That said, how do we want to proceed on this? Do we want to draw up an
> initial list of things to do with priorities, discuss them to make sure
> all are okay with the fix or what is proposed, possibly assign them to
> individuals, and then get started? Or even before that, do we want to
> state general aims about what we want to address in mod_python 3.3?
> Do we want to focus only on addressing bugs again, or look at some new
> features as well?

This is how I would set priorities:

Mark resolved bugs in JIRA as closed, just to clean things up.

Try and assign most of the issues to someone. This is a bit of PR spin,
but I think it looks bad when there are a large number of open issues
with no assignee. To the public it may look like the project is not
being actively maintained.

Fix the easy bugs first so we can backport to 3.2, and be ready for a
bugfix release. This does not include the various importer issues. I'd
say that there are not many things in this category, but we should
review JIRA to be sure.

Refactor the unit tests. If we are going to do this, we should do it
early in the development cycle so we have lots of time to test the test
suite.

Review JIRA and collect related issues.

Improve documentation.

New features.

Grand Unified Import Theory.

The order does not necessarily suggest the importance of the various
issues, and of course we can work in parallel on the last 3 items.

> By then I might have got my SVN access sorted out. Have account, but
> haven't as yet tried a check out using it.
>
> BTW, I still don't have priviledges in JIRA to administer entries, ie.,
> assign etc. Do I need/want that? How do I get that set up?

It's handy to be able to assign, close and resolve issues, so I would
say yes. I bevlieve Grisha can change your priviledges.

Jim

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Jim Gallacher wrote:

> This is how I would set priorities:

> Try and assign most of the issues to someone. This is a bit of PR spin,
> but I think it looks bad when there are a large number of open issues
> with no assignee. To the public it may look like the project is not
> being actively maintained.

I think the same can be said for the lack of Apache 2.2 support.
Personally, I would put this (as well as backporting 2.2 support to
mod_python 3.2) as the number one priority, for both PR and pragmatic
reasons.

The need for compatibility with Apache 2.0 & 2.2 is going to be an issue
for quite a while, and should be addressed before mod_python undergoes
some of the significant changes that have been discussed.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Jorey Bump wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote:
> 
>
> 
>
>
> I think the same can be said for the lack of Apache 2.2 support.
> Personally, I would put this (as well as backporting 2.2 support to
> mod_python 3.2) as the number one priority, for both PR and pragmatic
> reasons.
>
> The need for compatibility with Apache 2.0 & 2.2 is going to be an issue
> for quite a while, and should be addressed before mod_python undergoes
> some of the significant changes that have been discussed.

Apache 2.2 support has already been checked into svn trunk. It's just a
question of doing the backport to the 3.2.x branch once we've seen some
testing. I think we should plan on doing regular 3.2.x bugfix releases
so that the 3.3 dev branch can mature without the pressure making a
release just to fix bugs.

Jim

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Jim Gallacher wrote ..
> Jorey Bump wrote: 
> is 
>
> Apache 2.2 support has already been checked into svn trunk. It's just a
> question of doing the backport to the 3.2.x branch once we've seen some
> testing. I think we should plan on doing regular 3.2.x bugfix releases
> so that the 3.3 dev branch can mature without the pressure making a
> release just to fix bugs.

If we want to go down the path of having interim 3.2 bug rollup releases
while 3.3 is being developed, might I suggest that we target the following
for such a release in the near future.

MODPYTHON-77

The Simplified GIL Aquisition patches.

MODPYTHON-78

Apache 2.2 patches.

MODPYTHON-94

Support for optional mod_ssl functions on request object.

MODPYTHON-113

Make PythonImport use apache.import_module() via CallBack method.

MODPYTHON-119

DBM Session test patches.

MODPYTHON-122

Bash 3.1.X configure patches.

I know that MODPYTHON-94 isn't a bug fix, but a few people have been after
this one. Also MODPYTHON-113 may not seem important, but will mean
that any test package I make available for new importer will work properly
in all cases where module imports occur.

Anyway, after trolling through JIRA, these seemed to be the important ones
to me, but other might have other suggestions.

Now, the question is how we manage this. Do we concentrate on these only
in the trunk and get them out of the way first as a 3.2.X release, holding b
ack
any changes to test framework? Or do we merge such changes from trunk on
a case by case basis in 3.2.X branch?

Graham

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

2006/2/14, Graham Dumpleton <grahamd@dscpl.com.au>:
[...]
> If we want to go down the path of having interim 3.2 bug rollup releases
> while 3.3 is being developed, might I suggest that we target the followin=
g
> for such a release in the near future.
>
> MODPYTHON-77
>
>   The Simplified GIL Aquisition patches.
>
> MODPYTHON-78
>
>   Apache 2.2 patches.
>
> MODPYTHON-94
>
>   Support for optional mod_ssl functions on request object.
>
> MODPYTHON-113
>
>   Make PythonImport use apache.import_module() via CallBack method.
>
> MODPYTHON-119
>
>   DBM Session test patches.
>
> MODPYTHON-122
>
>   Bash 3.1.X configure patches.
>
> I know that MODPYTHON-94 isn't a bug fix, but a few people have been afte=
r
> this one. Also MODPYTHON-113 may not seem important, but will mean
> that any test package I make available for new importer will work properl=
y
> in all cases where module imports occur.
>
> Anyway, after trolling through JIRA, these seemed to be the important one=
s
> to me, but other might have other suggestions.
>
> Now, the question is how we manage this. Do we concentrate on these only
> in the trunk and get them out of the way first as a 3.2.X release, holdin=
g back
> any changes to test framework? Or do we merge such changes from trunk on
> a case by case basis in 3.2.X branch?
>
> Graham
>

I was thinking about working on the new test framework in parallel of
"real work", away from the trunk (in my /branches/nlehuen directory).
I don't think it will be too hard to track down the changes in the
trunk tests and bring them back in the new test framework, but I may
be wrong. One the new tests are available, I'll merge them back in the
trunk.

So I guess it's not necessary to hold back the next release do to the
tests, and it may be a good exercise to due a few 3.2.x releases in a
short period of time before doing the 3.3.x release.

Regards,
Nicolas

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Based on today's traffic on the mailing lists, I think that we should
go for a short-term 3.2.8 release of mod_python, with certified Apache
2.2 support on multiple platforms. The code is only there but I
suppose we'll need a lot of testing, so maybe we could expect to
release this in a month or two (given that the Win32 source code is
not even available right now).

Regards,
Nicolas

2006/2/14, Nicolas Lehuen <nicolas@lehuen.com>:
> 2006/2/14, Graham Dumpleton <grahamd@dscpl.com.au>:
> [...] 
s[vbcol=seagreen] 
ing[vbcol=seagreen] 
ter[vbcol=seagreen] 
rly[vbcol=seagreen] 
nes[vbcol=seagreen] 
y[vbcol=seagreen] 
ing back[vbcol=seagreen] 
n[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
> I was thinking about working on the new test framework in parallel of
> "real work", away from the trunk (in my /branches/nlehuen directory).
> I don't think it will be too hard to track down the changes in the
> trunk tests and bring them back in the new test framework, but I may
> be wrong. One the new tests are available, I'll merge them back in the
> trunk.
>
> So I guess it's not necessary to hold back the next release do to the
> tests, and it may be a good exercise to due a few 3.2.x releases in a
> short period of time before doing the 3.3.x release.
>
> Regards,
> Nicolas
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

2006/2/14, Nicolas Lehuen <nicolas@lehuen.com>:
> Based on today's traffic on the mailing lists, I think that we should
> go for a short-term 3.2.8 release of mod_python, with certified Apache
> 2.2 support on multiple platforms. The code is only there but I
> suppose we'll need a lot of testing, so maybe we could expect to
> release this in a month or two (given that the Win32 source code is
> not even available right now).
>
> Regards,
> Nicolas

Doh ! I've found the source code for Win32. I'll try to build it ASAP
and give mod_python a try.

Regards,
Nicolas

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
> Based on today's traffic on the mailing lists, I think that we should
> go for a short-term 3.2.8 release of mod_python, with certified Apache
> 2.2 support on multiple platforms. The code is only there but I
> suppose we'll need a lot of testing, so maybe we could expect to
> release this in a month or two (given that the Win32 source code is
> not even available right now).

I'm not sure we need *alot* of testing on *nix. The
APR_STATUS_IS_SUCCESS macro is not an issue there, since it is defined
as (rc == APR_SUCCESS), which is the change we've made anyway. That
macro does have a different definition on Win32, so that's where the
testing needs to happen. But if there is no Apache 2.2 for Win32, where
does that leave us wrt to a release? After Graham's digging and the
comments from Justin I'm much less concerned about a potential problem
on Win32.

I don't think we should pile a large number of changes in any given
3.2.x bugfix release. If each release has not deviated too much from the
previous version, then we'll need to do less testing and can release
more frequently. I'd hate to see us wait 2 or 3 months for 3.2.8 and
find we have so many bug fixes, and "little" feature additions that we
then need to go through another 3.2.8 beta cycle. Release early and
release often.

Jim

> Regards,
> Nicolas
>
> 2006/2/14, Nicolas Lehuen <nicolas@lehuen.com>:
> 
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 2006/2/14, Graham Dumpleton <grahamd@dscpl.com.au>:
> [...] 

If this is the one where you get "Restriction Execution" errors upon
launching a thread, then I'm kinda keen on seeing this fixed sooner than
later. Just my $0.02. :-)


Grisha

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]