Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we roll this?
It's been a long time since the last stable release, I think we should
go ahead and get something out the door...
--
Bojan
--- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we
> roll this?
> It's been a long time since the last stable release, I
> think we should
> go ahead and get something out the door...
Sounds good. AIUI Issac was going to
Joe Schaefer wrote:
--- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we
roll this?
It's been a long time since the last stable release, I
think we should
go ahead and get something out the door...
Sounds good. AIUI Issac
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:09 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Are you willing to give it a shot?
I can give it a try, but I have to warn that my Perl skills are
non-existent. How much of that is involved in the release?
--
Bojan
Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we
> > roll this?
> > It's been a long time since the last stable release, I
> > think we should
> > go ahead and get something out the door...
>
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 18:46 +0300, Eli Marmor wrote:
> DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!!
Do you have a link?
--
Bojan
what is required to run the perl test?
thanks
dave viner
On Jul 11, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 18:09 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Are you willing to give it a shot?
I can give it a try, but I have to warn that my Perl skills are
non-existent. How much of th
Eli Marmor wrote:
Joe Schaefer wrote:
--- On Thu, 7/10/08, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we
roll this?
It's been a long time since the last stable release, I
think we should
go ahead and get something out the door...
Sounds
Bojan Smojver wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 18:46 +0300, Eli Marmor wrote:
>
> > DON'T FORGET TO MERGE THE ENHANCED-CGI !!!
>
> Do you have a link?
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/apreq/branches/enhanced-cgi/
--
Eli Marmor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CEO, Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Lt
Apparently i suck at actually sending mail to the list. I blame gmail.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Adam Prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Given it's a request to the whole development group, could you resend to
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Adam Prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently i suck at actually sending mail to the list. I blame gmail.
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Adam Prime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Bojan Smojver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 10:44 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we roll this?
> It's been a long time since the last stable release, I think we should
> go ahead and get something out the door...
Just another ping on this.
There was talk of merg
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 10:44 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Is there anything that needs to be addressed still before we roll this?
It's been a long time since the last stable release, I think we should
go ahead and get something out the door...
Just another ping on this.
The
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:45 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> did you see the [EMAIL PROTECTED] post ?
No, not really. I don't normally follow that list, as my Perl really,
really sucks (did I mention my Perl really sucks? ;-)).
> If you want to volunteer RM for one of them, I'll take the othe
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:45 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
did you see the [EMAIL PROTECTED] post ?
No, not really. I don't normally follow that list, as my Perl really,
really sucks (did I mention my Perl really sucks? ;-)).
If you want to volunteer RM for one of th
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:52 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> If I can help with the 2.10 let me know, I was probably the last one to
> muck with it for 2.08 and 2.09.
OK, I'll holler if I get stuck. BTW, I will not be merging anything into
the branch, but roll it as is.
--
Bojan
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:52 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
If I can help with the 2.10 let me know, I was probably the last one to
muck with it for 2.08 and 2.09.
OK, I'll holler if I get stuck. BTW, I will not be merging anything into
the branch, but roll it as is.
P
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> [are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
Not sure. What should I be looking for?
BTW, I'm getting test failures:
-
t/requestNOK 34/36# Failed test 34 in t/request.t at line 93
fail #2
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
[are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
Not sure. What should I be looking for?
I'm compiling things now, I'll take a look in few.
Is that with
$ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
BTW, I'm getting test fail
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Is that with
> $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
I actually did "make release_test", as per instructions on the release
page.
--
Bojan
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Is that with
$ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
I actually did "make release_test", as per instructions on the release
page.
Thats a convience target for when everything goes okay. Since it didn't
run the make test
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Is that with
> $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test.
--
Bojan
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:02 +0200, Issac Goldstand wrote:
> I'm gonna play with my version too. I'll shout if I get something
> working (and you do the same?)
OK.
--
Bojan
On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 15:54 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>
> > Is that with
> > $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
>
> Fails in exactly the same way as make release_test.
BTW, 2.08 and 2.09-rc2 fail exactly the same on my box. Something must
I want to finish with the 1.3 release and then I can try to take a look
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 15:54 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>> On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 23:46 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>>
>>> Is that with
>>> $ make test TEST_VERBOSE=1
>> Fails in exactly the same way
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
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
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 10:36 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> We should find out what's going on with this before the release.
What I've discovered so far is that mod_apreq_output_filter_test.c gets
the correctly parsed content from apreq machinery and puts all that in
the brigade. But, upon ap_pass_
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> This will require further debugging...
After employing mod_dumpio, it seems that Apache actually outputs
everything out, even over SSL. I have no idea how and why it doesn't
show up in the client (i.e. as reported by request.t). Maybe some
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:31 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
This will require further debugging...
After employing mod_dumpio, it seems that Apache actually outputs
everything out, even over SSL. I have no idea how and why it doesn't
show up in the client (i.e. as reported by
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL.
>
> Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ?
Whatever Fedora 9 has, I have. Whether that's most up to date, I don't
know.
I think I should just put out an RC tarball and let people tes
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL.
Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ?
Whatever Fedora 9 has, I have. Whether that's most up to date, I don't
know.
I think I should just put out an RC tarball
Yes, testers await.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Philip M. Gollucci
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bojan Smojver wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 23:08 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>>
>>> Apache-Test definitely jumps through hoops for SSL.
>>>
>>> Are your perl SSL CPANs up-to-date ?
>>
>>
On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 22:56 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Probably a good thing, I'm not sure what the differences are.
> [are all my solaris fixes on the 2_10 branch ?]
Here you go...
--
Bojan
diff -rauN --exclude=.svn apreq-2.10/CHANGES apreq/CHANGES
--- apreq-2.10/CHANGES 2008-11-11 14:
On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 09:10 -0500, Adam Prime wrote:
> I was reminded of a documentation omission by an email on the mod_perl
> list this morning. Can something be added into the porting warnings here:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html
>
> mentionin
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 09:10 -0500, Adam Prime wrote:
>
>> I was reminded of a documentation omission by an email on the mod_perl
>> list this morning. Can something be added into the porting warnings here:
>>
>> http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__
Adam Prime wrote:
Bojan Smojver wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html
Does the attached patch work?
Committed revision 721096.
Backported to branches/2_10 721099.
you forgot to bump the =over value :)
--
--
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 01:40 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Committed revision 721096.
> Backported to branches/2_10 721099.
Let me know when you backport all the stuff you wanted to get from the
trunk and I'll roll RC2.
--
Bojan
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Adam Prime wrote:
Bojan Smojver wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html
Does the attached patch work?
Committed revision 721096.
Backported to branches/2_10 721099.
you forgot to bump the =over value :)
My understandin
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 01:40 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
Committed revision 721096.
Backported to branches/2_10 721099.
Let me know when you backport all the stuff you wanted to get from the
trunk and I'll roll RC2.
Did that, but I still need to fix the failing tests
Adam Prime wrote:
My understanding of =over , which seems to be confirmed by perldoc
perlpod was that is the indent level, so i'm not sure why you
would want to bump it.
You sir are correct. Apparently back in the day I misread and learned
that wrongly.
Fixed in trunk and v2_10.
--
--
On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 11:09 -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Did that, but I still need to fix the failing tests before you
> bother...
>
> Maybe Saturday.
No rush.
--
Bojan
42 matches
Mail list logo
