I thought better and I think that first thread will be delete. Because, all
post_request_read() hook, I add request, dont need a thread for it.
Now, second thread's asynchnous. That means, doesn't need a event add
request for scheduling. It's independent.
I didn't undestand about talk to your
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:54 AM, ricardo13ricardoogra...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought better and I think that first thread will be delete. Because, all
post_request_read() hook, I add request, dont need a thread for it.
Now, second thread's asynchnous. That means, doesn't need a event add
*Still* waiting for the sync between people and www
httpd.apache.org hasn't slurped up the updates yet (eg: index.html)
On Jul 27, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
All looks good! Plenty of both binding and non-binding
+1s and not a -1 to be found.
I will start the process of
Jim,
Jim Jagielski schrieb:
*Still* waiting for the sync between people and www
httpd.apache.org hasn't slurped up the updates yet (eg: index.html)
the announcement at:
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.2.html
reads:
...
A condensed list, CHANGES_2.2.12 provides the complete
Hi,
Paul Querna schrieb:
-1 veto, please revert this commit.
done:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=798508
Unless I missed something, these changes were not voted on in the
STATUS file.
no, you missed nothing, I was also very suprised about Bill's reply. My
own intention was very
Guenter Knauf wrote:
and even more clear was this:
So +1 for committing and I'll commit to helping review-after-commit.
review-after-commit means for me in this case CTR instead of RTC.
That sounds like /trunk/ rules. 2.2 is firmly RTC - hence the
problem. +1 to Paul's veto in 2.2.
Since
On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Guenter Knauf schrieb:
Hi,
Sander Temme schrieb:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
openssl-1.0.0betaX,
as far as I see, just some STACK
Dear developpers,
I'm trying to bring some attention on Bug 29744.
This bug is related to the fact that mod_proxy_connect does not work over SSL
connection because it write directly to the socket instead of the underlying
layer (SSL in our case).
a patch has been provided on bugzilla...
Hi,
I have backported r791454 to 2.2.3 in Debian 4.0 and have received a
report [1] about segfaults with mod_deflate and mod_php (5.2.0). As
far as I understand it, the reason is that mod_php uses ap_rwrite
which creates transient buckets. When the connection is closed by the
client, these
Apache HTTP Server 2.2.12 Released
The Apache Software Foundation and the Apache HTTP Server Project are
pleased to announce the release of version 2.2.12 of the Apache HTTP
Server (Apache). This version of Apache is principally a security
and bug fix release.
We consider
fua...@apache.org wrote:
Author: fuankg
Date: Tue Jul 28 12:50:46 2009
New Revision: 798508
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=798508view=rev
Log:
svn merge -r798359:798358
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x
This log message is insufficient, please edit it
Paul Querna wrote:
-1 veto, please revert this commit.
Unless I missed something, these changes were not voted on in the
STATUS file. I think wrowe's endorsement was... badly worded.
wrowe's endorsement was fine, and one of three votes required to override
STATUS flow, so you are right -
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Guenter Knauf schrieb:
Hi,
Sander Temme schrieb:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
Are there any plans to make mod_ssl compilable against
openssl-1.0.0betaX,
as far
On Jul 28, 2009, at 4:32 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jul 27, 2009, at 7:33 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Guenter Knauf schrieb:
Hi,
Sander Temme schrieb:
On Jul 21, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
Are there any plans to make
Jim Jagielski wrote:
What's wrong with a pointer to the patch in STATUS and a vote there?
Nothing. I found it overkill for what is being accomplished here, and just
suggested the best way to get me to spend my cycles reviewing the effort.
Since now three people object to this, I'm sure
On 07/28/2009 07:35 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
I have backported r791454 to 2.2.3 in Debian 4.0 and have received a
report [1] about segfaults with mod_deflate and mod_php (5.2.0). As
far as I understand it, the reason is that mod_php uses ap_rwrite
which creates transient buckets.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
-1 veto, please revert this commit.
Unless I missed something, these changes were not voted on in the
STATUS file. I think wrowe's endorsement was... badly worded.
wrowe's endorsement was fine, and one of three votes required to
Peter Sylvester wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
-1 veto, please revert this commit.
Unless I missed something, these changes were not voted on in the
STATUS file. I think wrowe's endorsement was... badly worded.
wrowe's endorsement was fine, and one of
On 7/28/09 1:35 PM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
I have backported r791454 to 2.2.3 in Debian 4.0 and have received a
report [1] about segfaults with mod_deflate and mod_php (5.2.0).
Isn't php only officially supported via fastcgi?
--
Brian Akins
Akins, Brian wrote:
On 7/28/09 1:35 PM, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
I have backported r791454 to 2.2.3 in Debian 4.0 and have received a
report [1] about segfaults with mod_deflate and mod_php (5.2.0).
Isn't php only officially supported via fastcgi?
Last I read, the PHP
On 28 Jul 2009, at 21:29, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
-1 veto, please revert this commit.
Unless I missed something, these changes were not voted on in the
STATUS file. I think wrowe's endorsement was... badly worded.
wrowe's endorsement was fine, and one of three votes
On 28 Jul 2009, at 22:15, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Totally in support of STATUS for backports; this code differs
enough that
it's no longer a backport. The toolkit wrappers alone were
significantly
re-factored between these branches.
There are other proposals that are not backports.
Nick Kew wrote:
What do you mean by override STATUS flow?
The convention is propose in status, collect votes, commit when approved.
But the policy is not propose in STATUS, the *policy* is review, then
commit. The devs can work these rules in whatever manner best accomplishes
forward
23 matches
Mail list logo
