Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Jim Jagielski]

I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM.

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Julian Reschke]

On 2012-07-10 16:16, Jim Jagielski wrote:

I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM.


Would be awesome to get 
 into both 
trunk and 2.4.*...


Best regards, Julian

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Jim Jagielski]

Just how "supported" and "standard" is this? Chrome seems to use it
for something else:

http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal


On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:14 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-07-10 16:16, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM.
> 
> Would be awesome to get 
>  into both trunk 
> and 2.4.*...
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> 
> 

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Julian Reschke]

On 2012-07-11 05:09, Jim Jagielski wrote:

Just how "supported" and "standard" is this? Chrome seems to use it
for something else:

http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal


I was told by Google that they are phasing this out (this may already 
have happened), and then will fix 
.


Not that it *is* implemented in Firefox 14, shipping next week: 
.


Best regards, Julian

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Jim Jagielski]

Roy, as Main Dude for compliance, any issue with getting

   

into trunk (and 2.4.x)?

On Jul 11, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-07-11 05:09, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Just how "supported" and "standard" is this? Chrome seems to use it
>> for something else:
>> 
>>  http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal
> 
> I was told by Google that they are phasing this out (this may already have 
> happened), and then will fix 
> .
> 
> Not that it *is* implemented in Firefox 14, shipping next week: 
> .
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Eric Covener]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM.

FYI I'd like for this backport to make the cut if anyone can review /
Jim can wait since it's frustrating for users to debug.

   * core: "AllowOverride Options" inadvertently treated like
   "AllowOverride Options=FollowSymlinks" after r1052419
PR53444
 trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1359976
 2.4.x patch: trunk works (+ CHANGES)
 +1: covener

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Roy T. Fielding]

I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what
he is doing with regard to HTTP.  In general, we should consider
the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug,
which means we should support everything in

http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml

Roy


On Jul 11, 2012, at 5:46 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Roy, as Main Dude for compliance, any issue with getting
> 
>   
> 
> into trunk (and 2.4.x)?
> 
> On Jul 11, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> On 2012-07-11 05:09, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Just how "supported" and "standard" is this? Chrome seems to use it
>>> for something else:
>>> 
>>> http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/ResumableHttpRequestsProposal
>> 
>> I was told by Google that they are phasing this out (this may already have 
>> happened), and then will fix 
>> .
>> 
>> Not that it *is* implemented in Firefox 14, shipping next week: 
>> .
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
> 

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Julian Reschke]

On 2012-07-11 19:15, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what
he is doing with regard to HTTP.  In general, we should consider


Thanks :-)


the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug,


In which case we should fix the registry.


which means we should support everything in

http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml


Yes. If we want to get all of these in, I can open a separate ticket and 
provide another patch.


Best regards, Julian

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Jim Jagielski]

++1!
On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-07-11 19:15, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what
>> he is doing with regard to HTTP.  In general, we should consider
> 
> Thanks :-)
> 
>> the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug,
> 
> In which case we should fix the registry.
> 
>> which means we should support everything in
>> 
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml
> 
> Yes. If we want to get all of these in, I can open a separate ticket and 
> provide another patch.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Jim Jagielski]

If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track
them into 2.4.3.

On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> ++1!
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> On 2012-07-11 19:15, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what
>>> he is doing with regard to HTTP.  In general, we should consider
>> 
>> Thanks :-)
>> 
>>> the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug,
>> 
>> In which case we should fix the registry.
>> 
>>> which means we should support everything in
>>> 
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml
>> 
>> Yes. If we want to get all of these in, I can open a separate ticket and 
>> provide another patch.
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
> 

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Julian Reschke]

On 2012-07-13 18:02, Jim Jagielski wrote:

If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track
them into 2.4.3.
...


I'm currently challenged by Cygwin so I can't make the changes myself 
(well, unless somebody wants to do the hand-holding to get my build 
working).


Can we get the 308 change in separately?

Best regards, Julian

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Rainer Jung]

On 13.07.2012 18:02, Jim Jagielski wrote:

If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track
them into 2.4.3.


I drafted a patch available at

http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana.patch

Coments:

- I didn't fix the indentation in include/httpd.h in order
  to keep the patch readable.
  Some of the new codes have a short description which is a bit longer
  than the longest one used up to now.

- I didn't "fix" the old define named "HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LARGE"
  which should have been "HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LONG" since it
  is defined in a public header file

- I included all changes proposed by Julian

- there is a big gap of unused numbers between 208 and 226 which
  I filled with "unknown" as was done before due to the limitations
  in ap_index_of_response() (focus on performance there)

- I added canned error strings for the new codes

- I did not yet define new error documents. The new pages could be

HTTP_PRECONDITION_REQUIRED 428
HTTP_TOO_MANY_REQUESTS 429
HTTP_REQUEST_HEADER_FIELDS_TOO_LARGE 431
HTTP_LOOP_DETECTED 508
HTTP_NETWORK_AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED 511

  Furthermore some other 4xx and 5xx codes already defined in httpd.h 
also have no error page:


HTTP_PAYMENT_REQUIRED  402
HTTP_NOT_ACCEPTABLE406
HTTP_PROXY_AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED 407
HTTP_CONFLICT  409
HTTP_RANGE_NOT_SATISFIABLE 416
HTTP_EXPECTATION_FAILED417
HTTP_UNPROCESSABLE_ENTITY  422
HTTP_LOCKED423
HTTP_FAILED_DEPENDENCY 424
HTTP_UPGRADE_REQUIRED  426
HTTP_GATEWAY_TIME_OUT  504
HTTP_VERSION_NOT_SUPPORTED 505
HTTP_INSUFFICIENT_STORAGE  507
HTTP_NOT_EXTENDED  510

I guess that means defining ones for the new codes is not a must ...

- I did not check, which of the new codes actually should change 
behaviour of the web server!!


Regards,

Rainer



On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:


++1!
On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:


On 2012-07-11 19:15, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

I don't know of any issues with 308, and Julian generally knows what
he is doing with regard to HTTP.  In general, we should consider


Thanks :-)


the IANA registry to be authoritative unless it is a known bug,


In which case we should fix the registry.


which means we should support everything in

http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes/http-status-codes.xml


Yes. If we want to get all of these in, I can open a separate ticket and 
provide another patch.

Best regards, Julian

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Stefan Fritsch]

On Friday 13 July 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 13.07.2012 18:02, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track
> > them into 2.4.3.
> 
> I drafted a patch available at
> 
> http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-ia
> na.patch
> 
> Coments:
> 
> - I didn't fix the indentation in include/httpd.h in order
>to keep the patch readable.
>Some of the new codes have a short description which is a bit
> longer than the longest one used up to now.
> 
> - I didn't "fix" the old define named "HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LARGE"
>which should have been "HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LONG" since it
>is defined in a public header file
> 
> - I included all changes proposed by Julian
> 
> - there is a big gap of unused numbers between 208 and 226 which
>I filled with "unknown" as was done before due to the
> limitations in ap_index_of_response() (focus on performance there)

Looks mostly good.

The lua_vmprep.c part has a spurios change to the makeintegerfield 
define, though.

And I would replace all unknown/unused descriptions with NULL and 
change the check in ap_index_of_response() to

  if (pos < shortcut[i + 1] && status_lines[pos] != NULL) {

This way, we correctly return 500 for unused response codes and we 
don't need to store dozens of unused strings.


BTW, one should do a make clean (or make depend) after applying the 
patch.

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Rainer Jung]

On 13.07.2012 21:52, Stefan Fritsch wrote:

On Friday 13 July 2012, Rainer Jung wrote:

On 13.07.2012 18:02, Jim Jagielski wrote:

If these can be added somewhat quickly, I'm willing to fast-track
them into 2.4.3.


I drafted a patch available at

http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-ia
na.patch

Coments:

- I didn't fix the indentation in include/httpd.h in order
to keep the patch readable.
Some of the new codes have a short description which is a bit
longer than the longest one used up to now.

- I didn't "fix" the old define named "HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LARGE"
which should have been "HTTP_REQUEST_URI_TOO_LONG" since it
is defined in a public header file

- I included all changes proposed by Julian

- there is a big gap of unused numbers between 208 and 226 which
I filled with "unknown" as was done before due to the
limitations in ap_index_of_response() (focus on performance there)


Looks mostly good.

The lua_vmprep.c part has a spurios change to the makeintegerfield
define, though.


Oups sorry, I had already seen that during compilation but finally 
forgot to actually fix the patch.



And I would replace all unknown/unused descriptions with NULL and
change the check in ap_index_of_response() to

   if (pos < shortcut[i + 1] && status_lines[pos] != NULL) {


Done


This way, we correctly return 500 for unused response codes and we
don't need to store dozens of unused strings.


Patch updated:

http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana-v1_1.patch

If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend.

Regards,

Rainer

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Julian Reschke]

On 2012-07-13 23:02, Rainer Jung wrote:

...
If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend.
...


Sounds good to me, and many thanks!

Best regards, Julian

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Ben Laurie]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM.

Any chance of getting my RFC 5878 patch in?

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Eric Covener]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Eric Covener  wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> I'd like to propose an Apache httpd 2.4.3 release RSN... I'll RM.
>
> FYI I'd like for this backport to make the cut if anyone can review /
> Jim can wait since it's frustrating for users to debug.
>
>* core: "AllowOverride Options" inadvertently treated like
>"AllowOverride Options=FollowSymlinks" after r1052419
> PR53444

This is in.

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Jim Jagielski]

Looks good... +1

On Jul 13, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> 
> Patch updated:
> 
> http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana-v1_1.patch
> 
> If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rainer
> 

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Rainer Jung]

On 16.07.2012 14:26, Jim Jagielski wrote:

Looks good... +1


Applied in r1361784 plus r1361791 (cosmetics).

Does this need an MMN bump?

- additional defines for the status codes in httpd.h
- increased array size via RESPONSE_CODES (same file)

Would it be a minor bump?

Regards,

Rainer


On Jul 13, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:


Patch updated:

http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana-v1_1.patch

If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend.

Regards,

Rainer

RE: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Plüm , Rüdiger , Vodafone Group]

> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Jung [mailto:rainer.j...@kippdata.de]
> Sent: Montag, 16. Juli 2012 14:43
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??
> 
> On 16.07.2012 14:26, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Looks good... +1
> 
> Applied in r1361784 plus r1361791 (cosmetics).
> 
> Does this need an MMN bump?
> 
> - additional defines for the status codes in httpd.h
> - increased array size via RESPONSE_CODES (same file)
> 
> Would it be a minor bump?

IMHO minor.

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: Time for Apache httpd 2.4.3 ??

[Jim Jagielski]

Yes, minor.

Thx!

On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:

> On 16.07.2012 14:26, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Looks good... +1
> 
> Applied in r1361784 plus r1361791 (cosmetics).
> 
> Does this need an MMN bump?
> 
> - additional defines for the status codes in httpd.h
> - increased array size via RESPONSE_CODES (same file)
> 
> Would it be a minor bump?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rainer
> 
>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 5:02 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> 
>>> Patch updated:
>>> 
>>> http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-trunk-status-codes-iana-v1_1.patch
>>> 
>>> If noone objects, I'll commit during the weekend.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Rainer
>