On Aug 11, 2015 4:33 AM, "Christian Kütbach" wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> there is a bug (server crash), while graceful restart a httpd at windows:
>
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58024
>
> Is there any progress?
>
> Can I help with testing or debugging, because I also would need a
sol
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I guess a minor at least.
>
> I did not add, remove or change the structure of the function, I simply
> made it available to modules. Does that warrant a major bump?
>
Never a major - that is reserved for changing the signature of fu
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> Anyone have a contact at ohloh/openhub/blackduck? HTTP Server somehow
> lost all of its users (well, we have 1 user now), which takes us off
> the front page.
>
Hi Eric, no ownership/membership issues right now...
I think you are followin
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> If you have ever read the httpd doccos, there are many people who
> made them what they are, and are deserving of thanks. But today we
> have lost one of the main and core talents behind them.
>
> Nóirín was a bright light and a festive soul
This was addressed for 2.2.31 and 2.4.16... See the significantly revised
default docs/conf/extra/httpd-ssl.conf.in template for our recommended
config.
We won't be entertaining patches to change the compiled-in behavior in
these maintenance branches, this has severely negative impacts on users
up
I'd fork the event or worker MPM module. Sadly, we have never decoupled
transport from the MPM model, but the solution would just work.
On Jul 17, 2015 16:25, "Phil Lello" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently developing a pseudo-VPN service, and would like to be able
> to inject requests (and proc
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
> On 2015-07-17 5:34 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-07-17 4:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>>
$ /path/to/libressl/2.2.1/bin/openssl s_client -connect localhost:8532
-state
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> Attached are the logs from both httpd and s_client, where we can see
> that httpd somehow expects a client certificate during the
> renegotiation (without sending any certificate request...), while
> s_client obviously does not send anything
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> Here I have the output of just one test t/ssl/pr12355.t - and note the
> differences in the ssl_access_log - not just the error messages (I have
> removed all "debug" messages from the logs as they were "in the way".
>
> LibreSSL is version
4 2.4
candidates!) that you were able to participate in, seemed unusually
difficult
to make it this far, but here we are at last.
Yours,
Bill
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.31, can be found
> in;
>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.31, can be found
> in;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> +/-1
>
[+1] Release 2.2.31 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
>
My own
On Jul 16, 2015 8:04 AM, "Michael Felt" wrote:
>
> First little thing I ran into - that I did not have with 2.4.12 is this:
>
> root@x065:[/data/prj/apache/httpd/test]/opt/httpd/sbin/apachectl start
> AH00534: httpd: Configuration error: More than one MPM loaded.
> root@x065:[/data/prj/apache/htt
The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.31, can be found in;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
+/-1
[ ] Release 2.2.31 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
Win32 src to follow in an hour this round. With such an insignificant
set of changes to a generally approved 2.2.30 w
On Jul 14, 2015 10:16 AM, "Jeff Trawick" wrote:
>
> Thanks/Sorry :(
Entirely my fault, I was in sync with progress to late last evening, and
skimmed the morning thread. No objections to reworking the release,
although my schedule keeps getting interrupted.
Later this evening it will be ready fo
Hi Jim,
This commit breaks our website, since the mirror they are directed to may
or may not contain the current advertised 2.4.12 based on exactly when that
specific mirror rsync's.
Please hold off 24 hours before committing the svn rm side of the svn mv in
the future... so that mirrors still ho
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2015 10:29 AM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>
> >
> > The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found
> in;
> >
> > http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dis
On Jul 11, 2015 10:29 AM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>
> The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found
in;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
[+1] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
The PROXY_DECLARE bug doesn't se
On Jul 10, 2015 4:34 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.16 can be found
> at the usual place:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.16 GA.
[X] +1: Good to go
> Thx!
And thank you!
We can have a dialog about the best behavior of our default config.
However...
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Kaspar Brand
wrote:
> On 01.07.2015 14:27, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > On 1 November 2014 at 09:05, Kaspar Brand
> wrote:
> >> The fundamental objection I have to enabling stapling by defau
The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found in;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
+/-1
[ ] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
Win32 src to follow shortly, vote to run through 14:30 GMT Tuesday.
omorrow am (Friday) to
> give 2.4 some time to settle and for people to test/review before
> we burn another tag :)
>
> > On Jul 8, 2015, at 8:58 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > It appears that STATUS has been effectively resolved on both branches,
> noth
/framework/ a bit later on if it's possible.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Stefan Eissing <
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>
> Am 10.07.2015 um 17:04 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Stefan Eissing <
> stefan.eiss...@greenby
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Stefan Eissing <
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> FYI: just checked in a modules/http2 that takes part in the build
> process, similar options as mod_ssl
>
> --enable-h2
> --with-nghttp2=
>
> Tests were removed, so all sandbox/* is gone. Instead, I transf
It appears that STATUS has been effectively resolved on both branches,
nothing significant that doesn't alter APIs/Directives in a significant way
is ignored, and we seem to be at a stable point for a T&R. One nice patch
from Eric could use a vote/backport, but it is anything but critical.
Jim, p
On Jul 8, 2015 6:59 AM, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
>
> However maybe the proposed backport about mod_reqtimeout (PR 56729) is
> worth being included too, but that's not a showstopper.
> It somehow made his way through 2.2.30 already (r1678698) but for
> 2.4.x this partial fix isn't enough (due to EOR ha
My only hint, if you can structure the commits to single purposes (e.g.
relocate files, then a commit to merge new testcases, etc...) that is
helpful. In particular - split code changes from the general reorg so it
is easier to follow, much as you can see we split committing xml docs
source change
2.4 still needs one reviewer to make the decision so we can have a 2.4, at
last.
Thanks to Mike for the review on the 2.2 showstopper, jumping ahead on
tarballs for 2.2.30 in the morning.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:38 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> Hope everyone enjoyed a nice weekend, an
Hope everyone enjoyed a nice weekend, and a good holiday for those here in
the States!
On 2.4, one significant issue remains unsettled...
*) mod_alias: Limit Redirect expressions to directory (Location) context
and redirect statuses (implicit or explicit).
trunk patch: http://svn.apac
On Jul 3, 2015 7:35 AM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:13 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify,
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:26 AM, wrote:
> > Author: jim
> > Date: Tue Jun 30 15:26:16 2015
&g
On Jul 3, 2015 9:37 AM, "Rob Stradling" wrote:
>
> On 03/07/15 11:13, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
>
>
>> Thanks for the detailed explanation. So yes OCSP stapling is really
beneficial
>> if it is possible for the server admin to set it up. But it likely
requires additional
>> configurati
Just to clarify,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:26 AM, wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Tue Jun 30 15:26:16 2015
> New Revision: 1688474
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1688474
> Log:
> Fold in git archive master of mod_h2 (latest commit 11905f474e)
> from https://github.com/icing/mod_h2 as per software
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group <
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote:
>
> > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > Von: benlau...@gmail.com [mailto:benlau...@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von
> > Ben Laurie
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Juli 2015 14:27
> > An: dev@httpd.apache.or
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:01 PM, André Malo wrote:
> * Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> > It seems that RedirectMatch isn't documented without the third (URL)
> > argument, unless in .
>
> Huh? Actually it is (or maybe I'm not getting something here). I checked at
> least back until 2.0.
>
> http://httpd.a
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> You ALWAYS preserve unset state. How else do you perform the THIRD merge?
>
To be more specific, httpd is allowed to merge whatever merges it likes.
If it wants
to optimize for the directory and then merge the base server
You ALWAYS preserve unset state. How else do you perform the THIRD merge?
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> This won't work for eg, this second level inheritance: server context
> is on, vhost and inner Location are unset.
> Location->inherit_before will be unset whereas i
For 2.2/2.4 the delta is a one line change to trunk's behavior;
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:27 PM, wrote:
> Author: wrowe
> Date: Tue Jun 30 01:27:42 2015
> New Revision: 1688339
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1688339
> Log:
> Very difficult to read, and therefore was wrong.
>
> Assert that the S
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Maybe defining (naming) inherit_before tristate values would help:
>
Not really...
+a->inherit_before = (over->inherit_before == INHERIT_ON
> + || (over->inherit_before == INHERIT_UNSET
> +
15 at 2:03 AM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> > I can't approve this semantic mess.
> >
> > EITHER it is inherit_before on trunk-2.4-2.2 with a change of default
> > behavior, or it is inherit_after, again across all branches with a
> change of
> > default behavi
I can't approve this semantic mess.
EITHER it is inherit_before on trunk-2.4-2.2 with a change of default
behavior, or it is inherit_after, again across all branches with a change
of default behavior. The delta should consist of a one line difference,
evaluating inheritance behavior within the me
Just a quick observation on the patch, you know you can use a tristate to
avoid an int?
Simply set the value to 2 in the config-create (the enum being off=0, on=1,
unset=2), check for RHS 'unset' during the merge, and in the feature toggle
test, explicitly check test for == of the non-default valu
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:42 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2015 1:45 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 11, 2015 8:22 AM, "Eric Covener" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:08 AM William A Rowe Jr
&
If asking about crash-bugs on dev@, could you please include the backtrace?
.pdb symbols make it useful, while
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff551063(v=vs.85).aspx
shows how to load the user.dmp file and produce that backtrace.
User in that link seems to be changing to
On Jun 24, 2015 8:39 AM, "Eric Covener" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> > I believe we should be treating the “pseudo” connections as real
connections, and perhaps by linking a “subconnection” to a “connection”
(c->main) in the same way we currently link a subr
You are correct, however the "syntax" never illustrated this.
It seems we need two syntaxes, not a [target] optional argument.
On Jun 22, 2015 2:02 PM, "André Malo" wrote:
> * Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> > It seems that RedirectMatch isn't documented without the third (URL)
> > argument, unless in .
A sort of unusual case though, first fix is a docs patch, then a test case
for the newly-documented 16 year old behavior :) +1 to the collected
feedback and plan.
On Jun 22, 2015 9:32 AM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
> Agreed. We should also, everytime we catch something like this,
> add a test-case to
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>
> Am 21.06.2015 um 21:02 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
>
>> It seems that RedirectMatch isn't documented without the third (URL)
>> argument, unless in .
>>
>
All the way back to 1.3... the fact that it worked at all was a coincidence.
If this were
Reindl,
Try reverting http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1663259
and see if this resolves your observed defect.
On Jun 21, 2015 12:53 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote:
> in fact RedirectMatch is *completly* broken
>
> RedirectMatch 404 ^\/something\/$
>
> and *any* URI get a 404 respon
On Jun 18, 2015 1:45 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>
> On Jun 11, 2015 8:22 AM, "Eric Covener" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:08 AM William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> >>
> >> But withholding a security fix for legacy server users?
On Jun 11, 2015 8:22 AM, "Eric Covener" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:08 AM William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>>
>> But withholding a security fix for legacy server users? Sounds like a
way to earn distrust of the user community, not reassure them that 2.4.14
is the be
In some cases, perhaps, but this was objection asked-and-answered so my -1
was void.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:39 PM, wrote:
> > Author: wrowe
> > Date: Thu Jun 18 15:39:53 2015
> > New Revision: 1686248
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/
Note in STATUS I've requested that you split the approved patch from
security@ that seemed to be lost in long and winding patch versioning from
the spaces accepted. A patch should correct one thing, not several, it
makes these too difficult to review when folks have a small window of free
time. Y
On Jun 15, 2015 6:11 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:33 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> >
> > Reviewing the spec, I cannot find where Sambar server is permitted to
insert whitespace. I further reviewed the ABNF appendix, and it does not
On Jun 15, 2015 1:26 PM, "Graham Leggett" wrote:
>
> On 15 Jun 2015, at 7:00 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > 1.3 (or 1.3-based servers) put whitespace there.
> > 1.3.x, 2.0.x, 2.2.x, and 2.4.x (for all released x so far) accepts
whitespace there.
> > We can't change that by default in a stable bran
Reviewing the spec, I cannot find where Sambar server is permitted to
insert whitespace. I further reviewed the ABNF appendix, and it does not
appear there, either.
The spec seems unambiguous;
chunk = chunk-size [ chunk-ext ] CRLF
chunk-data CRLF
chunk-size = 1*HEXDI
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> Anyone else inclined to just remove the message? It's a deprecation that
> didn't happen on a release boundary. AFAICT there's no reason to change how
> you run your server unless you use two different cert chains and then you'd
> find the in
On Jun 14, 2015 12:45 PM, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> I am canceling this vote... The breakage due to the chunked
> stuff is the reason.
>
> THIS is the reason I don't like "last-minute" changes that
> (1) touch a LOT of code or a major code path and (2) has an
> extremely limited QA history. We sh
Revision 1678233 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs]
Modified Thu May 7 16:26:43 2015 UTC (5 weeks, 1 day ago) by jim
File length: 57106 byte(s)
Diff to previous 1674655 (colored)
Merge r1676085 from trunk:
consistently output SSLCertificateChainFile deprecation warnings
Submitted
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Rainer Jung
wrote:
> Am 12.06.2015 um 13:49 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
>
>> Hi Christophe,
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Christophe JAILLET
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> should this warning at startup be an issue, why not just remove it in
>>> 2.4.x
>>> and keep it in
This is corrected in SVN, see
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/request.c?view=log
Unsure why this edit didn't carry on to the github mirror.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Rainer Canavan <
rainer.cana...@sevenval.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is the commit message incorrect or t
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Andy Wang wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2015 09:02 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>>
>> Sounds telling. Can you get your installer to stall without invoking
>> httpd.exe - and then attempt to start httpd outside of the installer on
>> t
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Andy Wang wrote:
>
> Pleading windows ignorance here, but what kind of permissions problem?
> Both processes are elevated to administrator via UAC (or with UAC disabled)
> and literally as soon as you kill the parent java.exe process, it starts to
> work.
>
Sound
t so happy to roll 2.2.30 in conjunction with 2.4.14.
>
> It does not stimulate pp to upgrade to 2.4., it suggest that the
> httpd-project gives 2.2 (legacy) the same priority as 2.4.
>
> Better first 2.4 and after some time 2.2. I do not agree with the argument
> to simplify the an
ndors, such
as Watchfire, mapped how other backend and proxy implementations
interacted with httpd itself, CVE-2005-2088 was upgraded to medium
severity. That is a possibility and the reason for requesting review of the
2.2 backport, on an expedited basis.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Wil
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
> I can reproduce the first case with the installer, pretty much ondemand
> using our installer stuff. I've tried reproducing it by ripping out the
> actions that do the Runtime.exec() to call httpd.exe into a separate
> standalone program, and t
gt; systems with different configurations - virtual and physical). This is the
> one I especially can't understand. How would launching httpd.exe from a
> installer process (java.exe specifically) prevent it from responding to
> requests.
>
> Andy
>
> On 06/10/2015 10:48
It turns off all advanced socket mechanics for accepting connections. That
means
it won't pre-fetch data. Because of how cobbled-together the WinSock
network
stack drivers (third parties, included) were, there are many things that
break
sendfile (disable sendfile) or socket reuse (disable advance
Committers,
we ended up short on reviewers in the security list, and are proceeding
shortly with 2.4.14.
I can't proceed with 2.2.30 until I get a third set of eyeballs on the
2.2.30-dev backport,
could someone offer to review ASAP? I will be tagging once the backport is
approved,
no other chang
I don't entirely understand the patch CHANGES, however...
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:41 AM, wrote:
> PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
>[ start all new proposals below, under PATCHES PROPOSED. ]
>
> * mod_ssl: bring SNI behavior into better conformance with RFC 6066
> (also
I've noticed this happening more and more often...
http://httpd.markmail.org/search/?q=+list%3Aorg.apache.httpd.cvs+%22vote+discarded%22
Here's one arbitrary example - there are many committers implicated here...
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original) +++
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/ST
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.13 can be found
> at the usual place:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.13 GA.
>
> [X] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:05 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Christophe JAILLET <
> christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> This has been fixed in trunk in r1619453. ( APLOGNO(02805) )
>
>
> Would you propose the backpo
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Christophe JAILLET <
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> This has been fixed in trunk in r1619453. ( APLOGNO(02805) )
Would you propose the backport? TIA!
e.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Gregg Smith wrote:
> On 6/4/2015 10:01 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>>
>> This is new, not quite sure how I didn't see it a few weeks ago as it's 9
>>> weeks old
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
>
> This is new, not quite sure how I didn't see it a few weeks ago as it's 9
> weeks old.
> Who forgot to fill in the number?
>
> mod_deflate.c(1283) : warning C4003: not enough actual parameters for
> macro 'APLOGNO'
>
I just rechecked my com
Yes, thanks :)
On Jun 4, 2015 4:43 PM, "Rob Stradling" wrote:
> s/2.2.13/2.2.30/
>
> ?
>
> --
> Rob Stradling
> Senior Research & Development Scientist
> COMODO - Creating Trust Online
>
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET <
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> I agree that the wording of the Changelog could be more meaningful.
> Apparently these functions are only used during conf parsing. So, I propose
> to turn is into:
> "Small speed optimization w
More context at your fingertips without refreshing httpd-2.2 branch,
first...
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57832
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> [Changing subject, don't mean to hijack the 2.4 activity train]
>
> There is a modestly i
ubled response in some edge
cases, I consider this one important enough to hold up 2.2 tag for some
more hours.
Bill
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:36 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Although there are some cool things that I
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:
> Hmm, personally, I do not like redundant configurations. If someone
> configures a module, like mod_h2, to be enabled (H2Engine on), she could
> expect the module to take all the necessary steps. So I am no fan of a
> „SSLAlpnEnable“.
>
The
I tried to reconcile your patch with your svn log entry and I failed.
Could you either correct or explain further?
TIA,
Bill
On Jun 2, 2015 12:40 AM, wrote:
> Author: jailletc36
> Date: Tue Jun 2 05:40:57 2015
> New Revision: 1683044
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1683044
> Log:
> Skip a few
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Although there are some cool things that I'd like to see in
> 2.4.13, I don't want to hold off any longer (plus, those
> cool things would be good incentive for a 2.4.14 sooner
> rather than later).
>
> I plan to T&R 2.4.13 on Thurs, by Noon
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Daniel Ruggeri
wrote:
> P.S.
> I'm not a Member or PMC... do I have access to the report that spurred
> the conversation?
>
Adding the context back to the thread...
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> FWIW: It was this month's PMC status r
> Secondly - when we get to the end of the shorter string; we can either
keep comparing to the last char or \0; or we go ‘modulo’ to the start of
the string. Now modulo is perhaps not ideal; and seems to affect the
pipeline on the XEON cpu (something I confess not to quite understand; and
I cannot
Don't be fooled.
OpenSSL 1.0.1 did not break binary compatibility, the lib designation
remains .so.1.0.0. Can someone confirm whether this was changed in 1.0.2?
On May 29, 2015 10:26 AM, "Mario Brandt" wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> it seems that you are right. After cheking the lib I saw this
>
> -rw-r
eployed. The many threads you can read
in our archives follow the same pattern each time. In general, Jeff's much
more diplomatic answer becomes the consensus, and the project moves on.
To answer your more detailed question;
> > On May 28, 2015, at 12:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
&g
On May 28, 2015 8:38 AM, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic
wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote,
On May 27, 2015 9:46 AM, "Jeff Trawick" wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
>>> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
>>> and mod_h2 wi
More data points and history to ponder, with placeholders to reflect the
passage of time;
1998-06-06 Initial 1.3.0 Release
1999-03-24 Stable 1.3.6 Release (last major MMN bump)
2000
2001
2002-04-05 Initial 2.0.35 Release
2002-09-24 Stable 2.0.42 Release (last major MMN bump)
2003
2004
2005-12-01
On May 26, 2015 10:31 AM, "Dirk-Willem van Gulik"
wrote:
>
>
> > On 26 May 2015, at 17:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik
wrote:
> ..
> > So I think that what is needed are two (or three) functions
> ...
> > - A string comparison function; where at least one string is is
under control of the attacker.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 28/05/2015 14:48, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Enough of this ad-hominem BS... [...]
>
>
> You've lost the argument and lost respect, you have demonstrated that by
> this pathetic and childish response.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote, which would
> have allowed us to know the potential "operating forces" on 2.2.x.
>
We determined from that poll that there were >3 committers who
would fix bugs on 2.2, so that discuss
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
>
> Ubuntu - 14.04 LTS, and Debian 8 (Jessie) got the message, a year ago
> April.
>
> RHEL / CentOS 7 aren't even a year old yet.
>
> OpenSUSE 13.1 beat them all to the punch, back in Nov of '13. So that
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> Choose one;
>
> [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
> that date
> [X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
> in Nov, '15.
>
Enough of thi
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
that date
[ ] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
in Nov, '15.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 28/05/2015 03:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> [...] maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
> 2.4's time is here, if not already past. I'm simply trying
> to encourage us to work on the future and not "focus" on
> the past. No need
onth. I'd expect this to
be brought up monthly until "maintainers" get bored with the dialog and an
EOL is pushed through :)
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:52 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:28:35 +1000
> Noel Butler wrote:
> >
> > Time to th
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > Focus your energy on anything you like.
> >
>
> Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :)
>
Please assume not :) ASF projects should still remain
scratch-your-own-itch(es).
Your message certainly had an 'adopt m
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Andy Wang wrote:
>
> On 05/26/2015 11:25 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Yann Ylavic > <mailto:ylavic@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Andy W
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
> on 2.4 and the next gen?
Nope, we'll let the internet speak for itself -
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/ws-apache/2
We are nowhere near close enough to the inflection po
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Andy Wang wrote:
> >
> >> # SSL Cipher Suite:
> >> # List the ciphers that the client is permitted to negotiate.
> >> # See the mod_ssl documentation for a complete list.
> >> SSLCipherSuite HIGH:MEDIUM
1301 - 1400 of 6469 matches
Mail list logo
