On 11.12.2010 20:27, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I've heard no objections, so on monday (12/13) I'll start
> the T&R.
Is there any chance that the attached patch might make it into
2.3.10? It includes two OCSP related changes for mod_ssl:
- addresses https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
On 12/12/2010 09:28, Kaspar Brand wrote:
> On 11.12.2010 20:27, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I've heard no objections, so on monday (12/13) I'll start
>> the T&R.
>
> Is there any chance that the attached patch might make it into
> 2.3.10? It includes two OCSP related changes for mod_ssl:
>
> - addres
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On Friday 29 October 2010, Eric Covener wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.3/mod/mod_headers.html#header
>
> doc says:
>
> By default, this directive only affects successful responses
> (responses in the 2xx range). The optional condition can be either
> onsuccess (default) or always (all st
On Wednesday 10 November 2010, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > The frequency with which this gets asked seems to make it
> > worthwhile doing something, even if this patch isn't the right
> > thing to do.
>
> Maybe the larger solution of having a document_root field in the
> request_rec would be better
On 13 Dec 2010, at 12:23 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
I have looked at the patch and it looks reasonable. The fact that two
known modules (mod_vhost_ldap and mod_ftp) copy the whole server_rec
just to change the document root means that this feature is needed.
An idea from left field.
Is there a
On 12/12/2010 5:56 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2010, at 12:23 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
>> I have looked at the patch and it looks reasonable. The fact that two
>> known modules (mod_vhost_ldap and mod_ftp) copy the whole server_rec
>> just to change the document root means that this f
On 12/12/2010 4:23 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 November 2010, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>> The frequency with which this gets asked seems to make it
>>> worthwhile doing something, even if this patch isn't the right
>>> thing to do.
>>
>> Maybe the larger solution of having a document_
On 12.12.2010 13:05, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
> It also makes sense to add a directive to make the OCSP timeout configurable.
> This can be done in the OCSP stapling code but not the OCSP code itself. The
> current default is (I think) the same as the http request timeout which is way
> too long in
