If PythonDebug is On and error occurs, status is 200 when it should really be
500.
--
Key: MODPYTHON-167
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-167
Project: mod_python
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-167?page=all ]
Work on MODPYTHON-167 started by Graham Dumpleton
If PythonDebug is On and error occurs, status is 200 when it should really be
500.
--
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-167?page=all ]
Graham Dumpleton resolved MODPYTHON-167:
Fix Version: 3.3
Resolution: Fixed
If PythonDebug is On and error occurs, status is 200 when it should really be
500.
On 4/22/06, Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately it tends to be just you and I tossing ideas back and forth
and when you have a two person democracy at work, hard to get some
consensus of what is the best direction to go. :-(
I think the namespace direction you're taking is
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-127?page=comments#action_12376137
]
Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-127:
Okay, lets not use camel case and where a sub namespace is required, it should
refer to the concept of what is
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-154?page=comments#action_12376138
]
Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-154:
What I have decided to do here is by default not allow the new importer to look
back in the handler root
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-143?page=comments#action_12376144
]
Graham Dumpleton commented on MODPYTHON-143:
Going to be a pain and change the name of the PythonOption used to enable the
new importer. The reason for this
Hey The Doctor (what's your name?),
On Apr 23, 2006, at 6:24 PM, The Doctor wrote:
MAjor Failure. I got thes erver to compile properly, the
httpd*.conf
to assimilate properly, but on start-up choke!
Couple of questions:
1) How does it choke?
2) Does the server start?
3) Does it print
Folks,
With all of our branches close to release, it strikes me as a good
idea to send out a single release announcement for all three. This
allows us to send as clear as possible a message about what we want
people to use and why. Considering:
1) httpd 2.2.2 is the best version ever and
Andrew Shugg wrote:
Andrew Shugg said:
Paul Querna said:
Please test and vote on releasing httpd 2.2.2, bundling APR and
APR-Util 1.2.7.
There's no way to build Apache for Win32 without Microsoft's Visual C++
product, is there?
... it's alright, I've just found out that Microsoft have
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:20:59PM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
It looks like the 2.2.2 RC is the closest to being ready for release,
with the 72 hour window on www.a.o running out Monday night Pacific.
However, I would like to urge holding back the release until the
branches can catch up.
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-101?page=all ]
Graham Dumpleton resolved MODPYTHON-101:
Fix Version: 3.3
Resolution: Fixed
If target handler found but evaluates false, there should still be an error
if not silent.
Hi all,
I'm quite new to the list, so I'm just wondering how it works. Jeff
Tharp and I created a bug report and proposed a patch to fix it:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39245
To me it's seems to be a quite trivial patch for something that is just
working incorrectly. It
On Monday 24 April 2006 11:24, Bart van der Schans wrote:
Hi all,
I'm quite new to the list, so I'm just wondering how it works. Jeff
Tharp and I created a bug report and proposed a patch to fix it:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39245
To me it's seems to be a quite
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:20:59PM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
It looks like the 2.2.2 RC is the closest to being ready for release,
with the 72 hour window on www.a.o running out Monday night Pacific.
However, I would like to urge holding back the release
Sander Temme wrote:
For 1.3, Jim has stated his intention to TR last Tuesday in order to
align with the other two releases, but I don't think this has
happened yet. Jim, would you have time to roll tomorrow? Otherwise I
may be able to do it, perhaps with a little help from my friends.
Nick Kew wrote:
On Monday 24 April 2006 11:24, Bart van der Schans wrote:
Hi all,
I'm quite new to the list, so I'm just wondering how it works. Jeff
Tharp and I created a bug report and proposed a patch to fix it:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39245
To me it's seems
On 4/21/2006 at 10:35:23 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please test and vote on releasing httpd 2.2.2, bundling APR and
APR-Util
1.2.7.
Download from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Changes:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/CHANGES_2.2
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:35:23PM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
Download from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1, and in production on ftp.heanet.ie for a day now with no problems.
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week
is *very* confusing to our users. Either 2.0 and 1.3 get
On 4/24/06, Swapan Gupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am using Apache 2.0.53. I am observing that when a 304 Not Modified
response is returned accompanied by the Location header, the
Location does not reach the user.
I could see that this header is not mentioned in the RFC for 304
On Apr 24, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week
On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
+1 for release on Ubuntu/x86, FreeBSD 6-STABLE/x86, Darwin/PPC.
Sorry, I think we should re-roll with the reverted copyright
statements. Since the code is the same and no one reported any
technical problems, the new vote should be pretty
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:15:01AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
-1, there's been enough back and forth on this. The current status is
that the existing candidate is good for release unless people start
reverting their +1's, which so far - has not happened.
As I have stated before, I
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 05:40:45PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
If you feel that strongly about it, veto the code change, and I'll tag
and roll 2.0.58.
O.k., this is coming anyway :)
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please test and vote on releasing Apache httpd 1.3.35
Download from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Changes:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/CHANGES_1.3
MD5s:
MD5 (apache_1.3.35.tar.Z) = e05c80bd0bffcf90df6c66db88106274
MD5 (apache_1.3.35.tar.gz) =
On 4/24/06, Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about, we lead with 2.2.2, and note in the announcement that 2.0
and 1.3 releases should be available later this week. This goes out
to the Slashdots etc. of this world. When 2.0 and 1.3 are ready, we
can update the website but not send out
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:55:37PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Please test and vote on releasing Apache httpd 1.3.35
+1, tested on Solaris Sparc and Ubuntu x64
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/24/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tbh, I'm -0.5 on this. It's complex enough as it is trying to get
releases out, and 1.3 hasn't even tagged yet.
My concern is that issuing three announcements in the span of one week
is *very* confusing to our
Deron Meranda wrote:
I think the namespace direction you're taking is great. Just to be clear,
the dotted-notation is simply that, a notation. The interface to
req.get_options()
is not changing is it?
You are correct, it's just a notation - req.get_options will not change.
I also think that
O.k., for the last time, hopefully :) A candidate for 2.0.58 is
available for testing and voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
The MD5sums are;
ac732a8b3ec5760baa582888f5dbad66 httpd-2.0.58.tar.bz2
a03eeefee78c01ec24c8671380763860 httpd-2.0.58.tar.gz
The code is identical
On 04/24/2006 08:40 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
O.k., for the last time, hopefully :) A candidate for 2.0.58 is
available for testing and voting at;
Hopefully my last +1 on this :-).
Regards
Rüdiger
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:49:29PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
What I'd like to propose is 1) wait for the unified announce on Wed night,
2) cease pushing out any 1.3 or 2.0 specific product announcements.
Whatever way we end up cutting this, can we agree to at least let
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:49:29PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
What I'd like to propose is 1) wait for the unified announce on Wed night,
2) cease pushing out any 1.3 or 2.0 specific product announcements.
Whatever way we end up cutting this, can we agree to
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Wow, this discussion is getting out of hand.
Ack, sorry for my contribution to the noise ratio, and our collective
frustration, but it's clear the board's entirely failed the projects in this
respect; we have alot of folks rethinking the same problem set, spread across
On Apr 23, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
FreeBSD bagheera.sandla.org. 6.1-RC FreeBSD 6.1-RC #3: Fri Apr 21
08:35:33 PDT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/
src/sys/GENERIC i386
Testsuite currently unusable, hangs on:
t/protocol/nntp-likeok 1/10
This
Sander Temme wrote:
On Apr 23, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
FreeBSD bagheera.sandla.org. 6.1-RC FreeBSD 6.1-RC #3: Fri Apr 21
08:35:33 PDT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/
src/sys/GENERIC i386
Testsuite currently unusable, hangs on:
resending to all the interested lists...
Sander Temme wrote:
On Apr 23, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
FreeBSD bagheera.sandla.org. 6.1-RC FreeBSD 6.1-RC #3: Fri Apr 21
08:35:33 PDT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/
src/sys/GENERIC i386
Testsuite
38 matches
Mail list logo
