Thanks, Jim!
> Am 16.07.2015 um 17:22 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
>
> Testing as we speak... will commit if all OK :)
>
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Stefan Eissing
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...got the test framework to PASS on my OS X against httpd/trunk built.
>>
>> I added more description of what
Testing as we speak... will commit if all OK :)
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>
> ...got the test framework to PASS on my OS X against httpd/trunk built.
>
> I added more description of what I found in the README and checked that in. I
> have the attached patch to th
...got the test framework to PASS on my OS X against httpd/trunk built.
I added more description of what I found in the README and checked that in. I
have the attached patch to the test code itself, which I will not just dump on
you. I think the changes are ok, but will wait for some feedback.
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > --On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
> >> That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
> >> doesn't really help developers
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
>> That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
>> doesn't really help developers.
>
>
> Coul
At 6:30 AM -0400 10/14/02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> > Branch 2.1 now? Only if we want to release the auth changes with all of
>> > the upgrade issues of deprecating several released module. It doesn't matter
>> > that "only the
At 05:30 AM 10/14/2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> > Branch 2.1 now? Only if we want to release the auth changes with all of
>> > the upgrade issues of deprecating several released module. It doesn't matter
>> > that "only the n
André Malo wrote:
>
> hmm. It can also deny/allow from all, env or subnet. So I guess,
> mod_access is not really a bad name for the module, for (not serious)
> example:
>
> BrowserMatch MSIE dont-like-your-browser
> Deny from env=dont-like-your-browser
if it had to be renamed, it might have be
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I believe mod_authz_host is a much better name for mod_access. It
> indicates that this module is only dealing with authorization based
> on the remote host components. mod_access can mean lots of things,
> but the fact that it was solely restricted to hostnames was
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
> tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
> the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced
> the changes to the
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > Branch 2.1 now? Only if we want to release the auth changes with all of
> > the upgrade issues of deprecating several released module. It doesn't matter
> > that "only the names have changed", this is called deprecating a module,
> >
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 14 October 2002 01:05
> At 05:33 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> You haven't read a single email on this thread. The EN
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
> > That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
> > doesn't really help
At 08:36 PM 10/13/2002, Joshua Slive wrote:
>André Malo wrote:
>>I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first
>>suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named
>>them "obs_*" and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by
>>Joshua they got the
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:36 PM -0400 Joshua Slive
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One more note: I'd like to see the rename of mod_access reversed.
> That just seems like a gratuitous change that hurts users and
> doesn't really help developers.
Could you please explain why breaking out the
André Malo wrote:
> I've tried to find a solution. It's certainly not complete, but a first
> suggestion. I simply fetched the old module docs from the Attic, named
> them "obs_*" and modified the xslt a little bit. As proposed by
> Joshua they got the status "Obsolete" and also a large warning on
* rbb wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> I did
>> try to wrap my brain around documenting both pre and post auth in the
>> same /docs-2.0/ tree. It didn't make any sense. Perhaps someone
>> else can do better.
>
> I will write the docs to handle both. I commit to hav
At 05:33 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT
>>of this thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills
>>and who kno
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT of this
> thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills and who knows
> whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably force this change
> into 2.0 for docs and upgrade reasons.
>
>
m very concerned that we won't
have the flexibility to rearrange this further, by trying to prevent user
confusion. Of course, the few loud voices clearly aren't concerned about
the confusion factor in the first place, so I suppose such concerns won't halt
progress going forward.
>> >
e. Auth. Two Bills and who knows
> whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably force this change
> into 2.0 for docs and upgrade reasons.
>
> So we have a radical change. I proposed we create 2.1 to incorporate auth.
I've read them all. We discussed this before t
--On Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:17 PM -0700 Aaron Bannert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That seems like a one-way street to me. How come it's ok to work on
> the auth changes in 2.0 but it's not ok for others?
As Sander pointed out, the aaa changes were made first, then we voted
on where they
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 5:15 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You haven't read a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT
> of this thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills
> and who knows whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably
a single email on this thread. The ENTIRE POINT of this
thread is that we have a radical change. Auth. Two Bills and who knows
whom all else may concur that we can't reasonably force this change
into 2.0 for docs and upgrade reasons.
So we have a radical change. I proposed we create
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 4:57 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I challenge you to do so; document both the old and the new so that
>
>http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/
>
> clearly documents both the pre-new-auth and post-new-auth. I'm
> presuming it can't be
At 1:05 PM -0500 10/13/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>Then I want to clarify ... you both object to the statement that developers
>within HTTP should be free to work on what they want. Obviously, you are
>both stating that we should not introduce 2.1 anytime real soon now.
>
In a nutshell, h
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 12:30 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far, Two Bills beg that we defer the auth reorg to 2.1. If I
> hear three, I will consider it appropriate to veto the auth
> reorganization for 2.0, until we start 2.1. The technical
> justifi
At 04:36 PM 10/13/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:59 AM -0700 Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>There were some directive changes, and certainly some different
>>modules to load, but nothing in the API department. Moreover, I
>>think we can deal with the dir
--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:59 AM -0700 Greg Stein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The API *is* stable. The auth changes did nothing to the API except
> to expand it a bit for *new* auth systems. Existing auth modules are
> unaffected.
Exactly - we only reorganized our aaa modules. No hooks o
e that your efforts are 2.1, that is for the
group to decide.
We are stating quite clearly, that you are free to branch and show us what
you want to do in 2.1. What we aren't willing to do, is create a 2.1 tree
where everybody is supposed to do their work. There is a good chance that
the first
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:39:28AM -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote:
> Speaking as an end user, my problem is this:
>
> Module development. PHP STILL does not officially support Apache 2. It
> is still marked as experimental. Mod_perl still doesn't support Apache
> 2.
>
> For me, these are the 2 thir
At 11:40 AM 10/13/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In the message above, I don't
>> think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
>> we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in
>> interpreting it that way?
>>
>
>+++1
At 05:59 AM 10/13/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
>The API *is* stable. The auth changes did nothing to the API except to
>expand it a bit for *new* auth systems. Existing auth modules are
>unaffected.
To the extent that they don't choose to use the new hooks, I believe
you are right. Certainly no MMN m
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:18:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >...
> > I think there is a much easier way to satisfy everybody and stay in the
> > 2.0 tree. The problem right now, is that the MMN isn't granular
> > enough. All we know, is that we
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
> >until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
>
> Fine. That's no reason to deprecate modules mid-
At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
>until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
Fine. That's no reason to deprecate modules mid-stream. Was it a good
choice to rename mod_access to mod_auth
I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
But, you have worn me down. Create a new fscking tree, populate it and
begin working on it. I will be finishing 2.0.
And yes, this is very harshly worded. We
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In the message above, I don't
> think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that
> we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in
> interpreting it that way?
>
+++1
--
=
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:00 PM -0700 Brian Pane
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> > but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> > 2.1: async write support. And async
I finally figured out why a 2.1 branch bothers me so much. It isn't being
done the way it should be done. When apache-nspr was created, it wasn't
because there was a big discussion on-list and Dean decided to go do the
work. When apache-apr was created, it wasn't because Bil
>Anyway, I've most likely upset a few people, and I apologize in
>advance. Just take these words from someone who *still* wants Apache
>to achieve world domination :)
As a user I'll try to help achiving this goal ;)
About the specific issue: I (again as a user) like the idea of at least
puttin
This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
more and more like that 2.0 tree is considered, by many of the
developers, little more than a playground to hack around in. There
seems very little regard for end users or developers ("API changes
with every release... yeah, s
> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 October 2002 22:18
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> > >but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> > >2.1: async write suppo
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:00 PM -0700 Brian Pane
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> 2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
> that may take a lot longer.
My belief
--On Friday, October 11, 2002 10:59 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm calling for a consensus opinion that the mod_auth changes
> are simply too radical to introduce into a current version. We keep
> treating the GA tree as a development branch. Many newcomers
>
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> >but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> >2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
> >that may take a lot longer.
>
> My belief is that y
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
> > tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
> > the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they a
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 11:23:23PM -0400, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> > > >but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> > > >2.1: async write support. And
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS
> tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made
> the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced
> the changes to the list, and invited peopl
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:18:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> I think there is a much easier way to satisfy everybody and stay in the
> 2.0 tree. The problem right now, is that the MMN isn't granular
> enough. All we know, is that we broke binary compatibility. But, we
> don't know
Speaking as an end user, my problem is this:
Module development. PHP STILL does not officially support Apache 2. It
is still marked as experimental. Mod_perl still doesn't support Apache
2.
For me, these are the 2 third party modules I use. Yes, the onus DOES
rest on the developers of these
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
> > >but I do have one change in mind that would fit well in
> > >2.1: async write support. And async read support, but
> > >that may take a lot longer.
> >
> > My bel
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Glenn wrote:
Glenn, thanks I had deleted Jim's message and I was re-creating it. You
made it so I didn't have to. :-)
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
> > more and
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:11:29PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> This is going to sound like a grumpy old man talking, but it's sounding
> more and more like that 2.0 tree is considered, by many of the
> developers, little more than a playground to hack around in. There
> seems very little regard
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 06:39:28AM -0400, Jeff Stuart wrote:
>...
> And now you want to create an Apache 2.1! Oy! Give the third party
> developers a LITTLE bit of time to catch up. :)
The presence of an httpd 2.1 would have *ZERO* effect on them supporting a
2.0 release. If anything, it would
At 04:05 PM 10/12/2002, Sander Striker wrote:
>> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: 12 October 2002 22:18
>
>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 10:37:07AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> > >I don't have a strong opinion about the authn redesign,
>> > >but I do have one change in min
how far we go with changes in that version. Certainly
some of the file-based stuff can finally be separated out, even if not
as radically as GStein has proposed.
2.0 is good, and should continue to be bugfixed for many months.
But with 2.1, we can let people start adopting threaded modules
On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 20:59, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Let's get cracking and we can have a 2.1 release out by year end,
> depending on how far we go with changes in that version. Certainly
> some of the file-based stuff can finally be separated out, even if not
> as radica
At 11:21 PM 10/11/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am so sick of this conversation. 2.0 isn't done yet. It won't be done
>until it is actually stable, and it isn't currently stable.
>
>But, you have worn me down. Create a new fscking tree, populate it and
>begin working on it. I will be fini
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:56:25AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Done. But did you overlook something?
>
> ssl_engine_mutex.c
> D:\clean\httpd-2.0\modules\ssl\ssl_engine_mutex.c(72) : warning C4013:
> 'apr_lock_create' undefined; assuming extern returning int
> D:\clean\httpd-2.0\modules
At 02:30 AM 4/9/2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>Yup, I just posted something similiar to dev@apr. I was hoping that
>one of the primary win32 developers could fix this up for us.
Done. But did you overlook something?
ssl_engine_mutex.c
D:\clean\httpd-2.0\modules\ssl\ssl_engine_mutex.c(72) : warning
Yup, I just posted something similiar to dev@apr. I was hoping that
one of the primary win32 developers could fix this up for us.
-aaron
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:25:34AM +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Index: apr.dsp
> ===
> R
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> I've finally removed the apr_lock.h API from httpd and apr. I just
> did another update on another machine to make sure I didn't miss
> anything, but it's still possible that something's weird on a
> platform that I don't [normally] use
I've finally removed the apr_lock.h API from httpd and apr. I just
did another update on another machine to make sure I didn't miss
anything, but it's still possible that something's weird on a
platform that I don't [normally] use (netware and especialy win32).
I&#x
64 matches
Mail list logo
