Re: libapreq-1.34 (RC) issues
Issac Goldstand wrote: Philip M. Gollucci wrote: Issac Goldstand wrote: Request.xs: In function `upload_hook': Request.xs:250: error: syntax error before fwrite make[1]: *** [Request.o] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/issac/asf/svn/apreq1/Request' make: *** [subdirs] Error 2 IS your perl using stdio or perlio ? perl -V says useperlio=define d_sfio=undef I *think* I also tried a stdio, but don't recall. Issac Success. Will post to http://people.apache.org/~issac/libapreq-1.34-RC4.tar.gz shortly and I'll call for a vote
[RELEASE CANDIDATE] libapreq 1.34-RC4
The apreq developers are planning a maintenance release of libapreq1. This version primarily addresses an issue noted with FireFox 2.0 truncating file uploads in SSL mode. Additionally, the memory allocation algorithm for multipart requests has been improved. Please give the tarball at http://people.apache.org/~issac/libapreq-1.34-RC4.tar.gz a try and report comments/problems/etc. to the apreq-dev list at apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Thanks, Issac
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 18:41 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must be screwed in my setup... When I run the tests against vanilla httpd (instead of Fedora supplied one), the number of tests drops to 82 (as opposed to 121 with Fedora supplied httpd) and all those pass. So, there must be some functionality that I didn't compile into vanilla httpd that is screwing up the tests. -- Bojan
[VOTE] Unify release SVN tag, SVN branch and dating policy for 1.x and trunk
After reviewing the RELEASE files for 1.x and 2.x, I'd like to propose that we clean them up a bit (though I don't forsee any more 1.3 releases, we may as well get it in at the same time as 2.x) I won't summarize the current orders of operation (see [1] and [2]), but here's what I'd like to see happen: 1) Create a release branch 1.x/2.x in /branches/ 2) In trunk, modify the CHANGES and STATUS files to reflect a new dev cycle 3) From the branch, prep the release for CPAN (don't forget to #undef the APREQ_VERSION_IS_DEV macro definition). Test. Upload. Vote. Repeat if needed. 4) AFTER the release is approved by the PMC, modify the RELEASE and STATUS files on branch + commit. Modify in trunk + commit. 5) Tag release from branch (svn mv .../branches/xxx .../tags/xxx) 6) Upload (release) Let me know what you think: [ ] Leave everything alone [ ] Change 1.x RELEASE file [ ] Change 2.x RELEASE file (if you agree to changing both, please +1 both of the bottom two options) Issac [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/apreq/trunk/build/RELEASE [2] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/apreq/branches/1.x/RELEASE
Re: Should we release 2.10?
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 09:38 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: These two tests fail when SSL is enabled. Indeed, things get chopped off. I'm attaching an example from test 34. The files 1.e and 1.r are expected/received content, respectively, that the test sees over regular HTTP. The files 2.e and 2.r are the same over HTTPS. You'll notice immediately that 2.r is significantly smaller than 2.e. Similarly, in test 36 things get chopped off again. We should find out what's going on with this before the release. -- Bojan tests.tar.bz2 Description: application/bzip-compressed-tar
