Hello,
You can find further details on the problem in the report I filed in Bug
12202 (http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12202). The short
summary is that if FileETag is set to None, any HTTP request with an
If-None-Match header will result incorrectly in a 304 Not Modified
respon
That is awesome! The code is REALLY crufty still, but it would be great
to get more eys on it. Fair warning, it is REALLY fragile still. Happy
hacking. :-)
Ryan
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Except for the poll.h header line, perchild compiled quite nicely on
> Darwin (Jagu
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Wish there were at least 5 hours more per day... ;)
Dood, I'm counting on 8. ;)
Except for the poll.h header line, perchild compiled quite nicely on
Darwin (Jaguar - 10.2). Also confirmed that it serves pages. Have *NOT*
yet checked to see if the perchild specific goodies actually work yet.
Next on the list :)
Wish there were at least 5 hours more per day... ;)
--
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:10:27AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I don't think we have enough -user- community to continue development
> on any Apache 2.x. UNLESS we reconsider what we are doing wrong.
> Breaking our users on every bugfix/point release would be a good start.
> Seeing the
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> At 04:22 PM 8/30/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >Ian Holsman wrote:
> > >
> > > what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> > > out to a 2.1 tree
> >
> >++1
>
> So... for the next couple months, we grind new ideas and development
> to a
At 04:28 PM 8/30/2002, Marc Slemko wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> > exactly,
> > this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
> > if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
> > a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one
At 04:22 PM 8/30/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>Ian Holsman wrote:
> >
> > what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> > out to a 2.1 tree
>
>++1
So... for the next couple months, we grind new ideas and development
to a halt (as things were when I got here in the spring
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 02:35:59PM -0700, Ian Holsman wrote:
> EXACTLY.
> branch your code, make it work, merge it back.
> rinse repeat.
> what could be simpler than this ?
> as long as your merge is done quickly (1-2 weeks) and is well-defined
> you should be good to go.
Um, in this case, the co
>I think this is an important fact which then stops many
>users from updating to Apache2 because of missing their favorite
modules...
>All platforms which mainly use binary distributions such as Win32 and
Netware are affected...
As we are using Apache 2.x on Win32 and Linux I'm just affected by
Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
>
>>exactly,
>>this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
>>if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
>>a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one.
>
>
> In preference t
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I don't think we have enough of a community to continue active
> development on two separate (but similar) trees. I don't want to
> start 2.1 and still see everyone adding features to 2.0. -- justin
Why not do a tiny temporary branch just for t
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> exactly,
> this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
> if you think your going to destablize the tree, then do your changes on
> a copy of the file.. and when your done just overwrite the old one.
In preference to doing that, just create a tempo
++1.
Ryan
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Ian Holsman wrote:
> >
> > what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> > out to a 2.1 tree
> >
>
> ++1
>
>
--
___
Ryan Bloom
Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> out to a 2.1 tree
>
++1
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society t
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
> this talk of 2.1/branching etc is very premature.
> what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting
> out to a 2.1 tree
Agreed.
--Cliff
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:00:49AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
>
>>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>I honestly don't care where this ends up. It just needs to get
>>>in to our tree somewhere. The aaa code is broken. It needs to
>>>be fixed (and I believe the patches we alr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> bnicholes2002/08/30 13:46:55
>
> Modified:docs/manual/platform netware.html
> Log:
> Fixing up the broken links
Sorry, I probably missed fixing those when I moved platform docs into a
subdirectory. But your fix is not really the best, because now these
> Seems that everyone is killing his brains out, but we still have only
> 6500 upgrades from 1.3.x. One of them is the guy from Germany that is
> running 2.0.18 for more than a year.
sure; and this will probably never change till the Apache2 APIs become somewhat more
stabilized.
What I mean is th
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 11:00:49AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>...
> >I honestly don't care where this ends up. It just needs to get
> >in to our tree somewhere. The aaa code is broken. It needs to
> >be fixed (and I believe the patches we already have start the
> >proc
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:04:06PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > And, I'd like to seriously consider using Subversion rather than CVS.
> > To me, it makes a lot of sense to switch to Subversion now rather
> > than later. If w
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:27:18AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > - As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0.
>
> Maybe HEAD should be the development trunk, while we branch off
> minor (and patch) revisions for stabaliza
Joshua,
I have moved the LDAP modules back into /experimental. I also
moved the files mod_auth_ldap.html and mod_ldap.html into /manual/mod.
These html files were orignally pulled from the CVS attic so I would
expect that they are fairly old. The content is still valid but I am
sure that th
> [...]
> > Look at all of the repositories we created that are still left
> > around:
> >
> > apache-1.2
> > apache-1.3
> > apache-apr
> > apache-nspr
> > httpd-2.0
> >
> > The apache-apr and apache-nspr repositories were fairly short-lived.
> > I wasn't around when they were created, so perhaps
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >(leaving 2.0 as head, so nobody following older checkout instructions to
> >grab the now-current version have a 'surprize' in store.)
>
> I tend to find myself agreeing with him on this.
As Marc pointed out, that won't work with CVS.
> And, becau
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
>
>>No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are*
>>people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3
>>tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:27:18AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > - As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0.
>
> Maybe HEAD should be the development trunk, while we branch off
> minor (and patch) revisions for stabaliza
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > - As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0.
>
> Maybe HEAD should be the development trunk, while we branch off
> minor (and patch) revisions for stabalization.
HEAD needs to
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 07:30:16PM +0200, Andre Schild wrote:
> +1 for branches
>
> And consider naming the next repository 3.x ;-)
+1 :)
-aaron
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 30.08.2002 19:20:58
>>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:04:06PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
>> The Apache project's dislike of branching seems slightly odd to me
>> given that it seems to work quite effectively over long periods of
>> time in the BSD projects.
>+1
>This is not everyone he
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are*
> people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3
> tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn't* want that to
> happen. I see
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> - As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0.
Maybe HEAD should be the development trunk, while we branch off
minor (and patch) revisions for stabalization.
Like this:
HEAD
| HTTPD_2_0
| /
| /-HTTPD_2_
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:04:06PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> The Apache project's dislike of branching seems slightly odd to me
> given that it seems to work quite effectively over long periods of
> time in the BSD projects.
+1
This is not everyone here, only a vocal minority. I am totally in f
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:43:33AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I dislike backporting things. I think we all need to be on the 'same
> version.' Heck, we have committers who refuse to use 2.0 ("it's not
> portable"). If we go to 2.1, then I want to see 2.0 closed for
> anything other than
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:47:28AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> And, I'd like to seriously consider using Subversion rather than CVS.
> To me, it makes a lot of sense to switch to Subversion now rather
> than later. If we do start on a model where we 'branch early and
> often,' Subversion
> -Original Message-
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 2.0/2.1 split?
>
> I don't think we have enough -user- community to continue development
> on any Apache 2.x. UNLESS we reconsider
Brad Nicholes wrote:
> Is it appropriate to place the docs
> for an experimental module in /docs/manual/mod
Yes. They'll need to be converted to XML, but you can just drop them in
for now if you don't have time to do that.
> and the sample .conf in
> /docs/conf
No, I don't think we want to
Okay, now that OtherBill weighed in, I guess I'd like to start on
the 2.1 branch. Now, how to achieve this?
I think housing a branch under the httpd-2.0 CVS repository isn't
ideal for several reasons:
- As OtherBill pointed out, HEAD must remain 2.0.
- Our past strategy seems to have been that
It appears that there is enough consensus to warrant moving
AUTH_LDAP into /experimental. I am planning on making the move by the
end of the day (8/30). I am planning on flattening out the directory
structure and putting all of the source for both mod_auth_ldap and
util_ldap into /experiment
Check out the commit I just made. Not complete but better..
Bill
> I was just trying to correct the docs for ThreadLimit and
> ThreadsPerChild to have the correct defaults for mpm_winnt, and I ran
> into a little confusion. From a very quick reading, it appears that the
> mpm_default.h for
At 10:43 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:54:45AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with new ideas,
> guys.
> > If they test out clean and don't break compatibility [in any significant
> > way]
> > then
Thanks Kris.
I've applied your change.
At 10:09 AM 8/30/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > ... Now that it's GA, we should really be treating the 2.0 tree
> > with the same respect and caution we use on the 1.3 tree.
> >
> > It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:54:45AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with new ideas, guys.
> If they test out clean and don't break compatibility [in any significant
> way]
> then they can be backported to 2.0.
I dislike backporting thing
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 01:48 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >Since no one had any feedback to the earlier posts about splitting
> >the auth modules into authn/authz, I decided to just call it authn
> >(old auth) and authz (what Dirk called access).
> >
> >
At 01:48 AM 8/30/2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>Since no one had any feedback to the earlier posts about splitting
>the auth modules into authn/authz, I decided to just call it authn
>(old auth) and authz (what Dirk called access).
>
>http://www.apache.org/~jerenkrantz/new-aaa/aaa-authn-authz-spl
I was just trying to correct the docs for ThreadLimit and
ThreadsPerChild to have the correct defaults for mpm_winnt, and I ran
into a little confusion. From a very quick reading, it appears that the
mpm_default.h for mpm_winnt is stolen directly from an MPM that has
min/maxsparechild mainte
>-- Original Message --
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:49:14 -0700
>From: Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: authn/authz split
>Do you think this new feature is well-defined enough to warrant
>a new revision number? I'd like to see us
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:49:27PM +0100, Leon Brocard wrote:
>
> Thu Aug 29 12:29:31 20010306205713627580 54 54 0
>
> It's truncating the year.
Thanks, committed.
Martin
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-8
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>I will make one exception to that statement. If it lands inside of
>>APR-util, under the XML directory, and it is made to work with the XML
>>parser, I can accept that landing spot. As it fits in closer with our
>>goals (I think). Jim, I can'
Hi again,
After testing I discovered that some more changes were needed to get it to work.
Patch has been attached. This patch should still have the behaviour of enabling
compression when "gzip-only-text/html" is set to something other than "1". It
will also enable compression if "gzip-only-tex
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 03:39:35PM -0400, Dave Hill wrote:
> If I am outvoted on the env veriable (and so far it is 2 against me :-)
That is, three: count me in.
I dislike the "magic" environment changes (unless they are at least
printed out, so that I see what happens), and I also prefer a so
"Brad Nicholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Now that 2.0.40 has been released and we are in development of .41
> and the fact that there has been a proposal for re-architecting the AUTH
> modules, I would like to propose that we move AUTH_LDAP out of it's own
> project and into experimental.
Hi,
The 2.0.39 code:
if ((r->content_type == NULL || strncmp(r->content_type, "text/html", 9))
&& apr_table_get(r->subprocess_env, "gzip-only-text/html")) {
ap_remove_output_filter(f);
return ap_pass_brigade(f->next, bb);
}
says 'if we have a response with a con
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:48:39PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I imagine auth may be a little wonky until this settles down, but
> once it settles down, we can ensure we're backwards-compat with the
> old aaa system. No one other than Aaron and myself seem interested
> in calling this 2.1,
I had the same problem, after I did this correction, no more error
messages !
You have my vote to add this trick to the recommendations !
Peter.
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> > I'd bet that this is idle server maintenance (taking down a child
> > process which isn't necessary). The non-SSL p
56 matches
Mail list logo
