On Nov 26, 2007 8:46 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay with me. All we need now is a volunteer to figure out what
> (if any) changes are needed to use a separately installed PCRE.
All hail Guido's time machine than has been hijacked by Joe. =) -- justin
% ./configure --help
On Nov 26, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 8:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Once we switched our code to supporting external PCREs, in my
opinion,
we should have just dropped the whole vendor branch concept as it
On Nov 26, 2007 8:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > Once we switched our code to supporting external PCREs, in my opinion,
> > we should have just dropped the whole vendor branch concept as it
> > serves no legitimate purpose any more. If the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Once we switched our code to supporting external PCREs, in my opinion,
we should have just dropped the whole vendor branch concept as it
serves no legitimate purpose any more. If the PCRE guys are doing
releases now (it seems someone is home now), then we should just ge
On Nov 26, 2007 4:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Generally speaking, if someone tells you to do something in IRC
> then it is almost certainly the wrong thing to do -- just like
> decisions made in boring meetings.
Philip said he never intended to commit it.
> The right thing
On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
I accidentally committed an upgrade to httpd/httpd/vendor/pcre/current
to 7.4. I apparently had a commit bit there because I'm on the PMC
from past apreq work.
I immediately asked what to do over on #infra on freenode and
jerenkrantz a
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
I figured after the earlier snafu, I should at least send this to the list
for review. I won't do anything with it unless people think its a good
thing.
Aslo, I mean to add:
Affected package: pcre-7.2
Type of problem: pcre -- arbitrary code execu
On 11/26/2007 03:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: niq
> Date: Mon Nov 26 06:56:12 2007
> New Revision: 598299
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=598299&view=rev
> Log:
> mod_filter: don't segfault on (unsupported) chained FilterProviders.
> PR 43956
>
> Modified:
> httpd/htt
I figured after the earlier snafu, I should at least send this to the list
for review. I won't do anything with it unless people think its a good
thing.
--
Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 323.219.4708
Senior Syst
On Nov 26, 2007 11:50 AM, Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:38:28 -0500
> "Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What is the intention for the UNHANDLED case?The code/comments
> > seem to imply we'll end up in the "respect CL" path.
>
> Exactly.
Cool; we're
Hi All,
I accidentally committed an upgrade to httpd/httpd/vendor/pcre/current
to 7.4. I apparently had a commit bit there because I'm on the PMC from
past apreq work.
I immediately asked what to do over on #infra on freenode and jerenkrantz
agreed I should back it out so I did.
It was com
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:38:28 -0500
"Jeff Trawick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the intention for the UNHANDLED case?The code/comments
> seem to imply we'll end up in the "respect CL" path.
Exactly.
The alternative is to reject it, which might risk breaking
something that worked befor
On Nov 17, 2007 9:36 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: niq
> Date: Sat Nov 17 06:36:58 2007
> New Revision: 595954
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=595954&view=rev
> Log:
> Safer fix to PR43882 than in r595672.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_filters.c
>
> M
On Mon, November 26, 2007 4:18 pm, Nick Kew wrote:
> mod_include has an expression parser (parse_expr at line 1125
> in /trunk/). Many other modules implement simpler parsers for
> a range of purposes.
>
> It seems to me we could potentially benefit from a general-
> purpose expression parser, an
mod_include has an expression parser (parse_expr at line 1125
in /trunk/). Many other modules implement simpler parsers for
a range of purposes.
It seems to me we could potentially benefit from a general-
purpose expression parser, and I'm wondering about extracting
mod_include's parse_expr as ap
15 matches
Mail list logo
