quetz-mod_python-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Robbins" <je...@livedata.com>
Subject Re: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?
Date Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:36:50 GMT
I'd really like to see MODPYTHON-195 fixed with what I've tested.  It is a 
WIN32-only bug and fix.  Restart of Apache on Win32 leaks one event handle 
every time if the fix is not applied.  We have to run on Windows (long story 
there) and need to run long term leak-free.

Thanks,

Jeff
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Gallacher" <jpg@jgassociates.ca>
To: <python-dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Are we ready for a 3.3 beta?


> It sure feels like we are close thanks to Graham's hard work. I've been 
> doing some testing and it's looking good.
>
> With 3.3.0-dev-20061104 (r471260):
>
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian 3.1 Stable, Apache 2.0.54 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.1
>
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.06, Apache 2.0.55 (worker-mpm), python 2.4.3
> +1 Linux Ubuntu 6.10, Apache 2.0.55 (prefork-mpm), python 2.4.4c1
>
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.3.5
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.4.4
> +1 Linux Debian unstable, Apache 2.2.3 (worker-mpm), Python 2.5
>
>
> I'm assuming we are *officially* dropping python 2.2 support, but it does 
> still work as long as you are using the legacy importer.
>
> Also, I wonder if we should bump the apache version required to 2.0.54, or 
> at least note in the docs that we haven't done any testing for version < 
> 2.0.54 (or 2.0.53 as the case may be).
>
> Anyway, are there any burning issues that need to be addressed beyond a 
> couple of documentation tweaks? If not I'll roll a tarball for preliminary 
> testing and if all goes well we can proceed to a beta release cycle in 
> fairly quick order.
>
> Jim
>
> 


Mime
View raw message