On Thursday 14 October 2010, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> [ +1] Release httpd 2.0.64 as GA
Tested with builtin apr/apr-util on Debian unstable/x86
On 16 Oct 2010, at 7:22 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
It's because if we don't do this, the very first user who sends
"Cache-Control: no-cache" will cause the entry to become invalidated,
Hm. Invalidated? We might have no stale entry, so what I am asking
about is the
case of a fresh 5xx response
On Friday 01 October 2010, Joe Orton wrote:
> The ap_expr API is still as fugly as when I reviewed it way back;
> lacks namespace-safety, lacks docs, exposure of parser internals
> is awful, etc. Is nobody planning to clean this up before 2.4?
I will look at it.
Hi all,
Across mod_cache, all the logging directives log at the server scope
using ap_log_error(), instead of at the request scope ap_log_rerror().
While I suspect the original intention of this was because the
quick_handler() is involved, is it true to assume that the
ap_log_rerror() req
