Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/21/2005 08:34 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > --On October 21, 2005 4:29:36 PM +0200 Ruediger Pluem
>
> >> - add my (of course non binding) vote on this backport?
> >
> >
> > FWIW, your vote *is* binding and counts towards quorum. -- justin
>
> Sorry, bu
--On October 21, 2005 11:34:47 PM +0200 Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Sorry, but I am confused. I thought only PMC members have binding votes.
Or is my vote binding because I proposed the backport?
Since you have commit access to httpd, the intent is for you to be able to
vote on
On 10/21/2005 07:43 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> We might be better off using this fix (and documenting the usage of all get
> brigade calls w.r.t. transient buckets), while in 2.0.x we might want to
> return an allocated bucket in mod_ssl to ensure third party 2.
On 10/21/2005 08:34 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On October 21, 2005 4:29:36 PM +0200 Ruediger Pluem
>> - add my (of course non binding) vote on this backport?
>
>
> FWIW, your vote *is* binding and counts towards quorum. -- justin
Sorry, but I am confused. I thought only PMC members ha
--On October 21, 2005 4:29:36 PM +0200 Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
like to propose this patch for backport. As I am only committer am I
allowed
- to add it to the 2.0.x STATUS file
- add my (of course non binding) vote on this backport?
FWIW, your vote *is* binding and counts t
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/21/2005 04:06 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
[..cut..]
I agree that's the correct analysis, your patch to fix the proxy to use
ap_save_brigade looks good to me.
Thanks for feedback. I will commit later to give otherBill a chance for
feedback.
One technical question: As thi
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/19/2005 08:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
Researching as well.
Any new results from your research? Otherwise I would like to commit the latest
version
of my patch to trunk if you have no objections.
Yes ... and from the breadth of your other patc
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/21/2005 04:06 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> [..cut..]
>
> > I agree that's the correct analysis, your patch to fix the proxy to use
> > ap_save_brigade looks good to me.
>
> Thanks for feedback. I will commit later to give otherBill a chance for
> feedback.
Ju
On 10/21/05, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/21/2005 04:06 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> [..cut..]
>
> > I agree that's the correct analysis, your patch to fix the proxy to use
> > ap_save_brigade looks good to me.
>
> Thanks for feedback. I will commit later to give otherBill a ch
On 10/19/05, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2005 10:44 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> [..cut..]
>
> >
> > The problem is -not- in creating the transient buckets (if they are
> > sent, that's
> > goodness). The problem is in transforming them to persistant buckets
> >
On 10/21/2005 04:06 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
[..cut..]
> I agree that's the correct analysis, your patch to fix the proxy to use
> ap_save_brigade looks good to me.
Thanks for feedback. I will commit later to give otherBill a chance for
feedback.
One technical question: As this bug was reported a
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:44:26PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> Sorry, maybe I am only confused, but I think I disagree with you on that.
> The proxy code is reading the input filter chain in a loop and does repeated
> calls to ap_get_brigade without doing any more things with these brigades
> it
On 10/19/2005 08:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
> Researching as well.
>
Any new results from your research? Otherwise I would like to commit the latest
version
of my patch to trunk if you have no objections.
Regards
Rüdiger
On 10/19/2005 10:44 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
>
> The problem is -not- in creating the transient buckets (if they are
> sent, that's
> goodness). The problem is in transforming them to persistant buckets
> before the
> core, ssl, or other filters who have set-aside operations
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 10/19/2005 08:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
Ruediger - I'm questioning if it's the BRIGADE_CONCAT, or actually if we
are
failing to respect transient buckets in the core / ssl filters. If we are
failing to pay attention to transient buckets (or not al
On 10/19/2005 08:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
>
> Ruediger - I'm questioning if it's the BRIGADE_CONCAT, or actually if we
> are
> failing to respect transient buckets in the core / ssl filters. If we are
> failing to pay attention to transient buckets (or not allocating the
>
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Meanwhile I identified 3 others positions in the proxy code path which can
cause this kind of trouble.
Please find the updated patches attached. Using APR_BRIGADE_CONCAT in a loop
with ap_get_brigade
on the same brigade seems to be troublesome :-).
Ruediger - I'm questio
Meanwhile I identified 3 others positions in the proxy code path which can
cause this kind of trouble.
Please find the updated patches attached. Using APR_BRIGADE_CONCAT in a loop
with ap_get_brigade
on the same brigade seems to be troublesome :-).
Regards
Rüdiger
On 10/19/2005 11:10 AM, Ruedi
Attached my (currently) final versions of the patches to fix PR37145 on 2.0.x
(37145_2.0.x.diff)
and on trunk (37145.diff). Comments / thoughts / votes are highly appreciated
as I want to
commit to trunk and propose it for backport in 2.0.x.
Regards
Rüdiger
On 10/19/2005 02:46 AM, Ruediger Plu
19 matches
Mail list logo
