On 01 Dec 2011, at 1:28 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> I guess before we commit this to 2.4, all other pending backports
> should be done.
Speaking for myself, all my backports are done.
Regards,
Graham
--
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2011, at 9:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting changing the alpha prefix. Just block out
> > ranges so that any listing of the codes is grouped by module that
> > emits them.
>
> From my experience, any attempt
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Tim Bannister wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2011, at 17:14, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > Yes, that would be a good idea and I agree with Daniel that we
> > should use a distinct prefix or format. We currently have around
> > 2700 calls to *_log_?error in trunk, so a 4-digit number
On 30 Nov 2011, at 1:30 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> The change has been reverted on v2.4, and the following patch gives the API
> changes that allow us to fix this in the v2.4 series:
Applied in r 1208822 and backported in r1208824.
Regards,
Graham
--
On Nov 30, 2011, at 3:23 AM, HyperHacker wrote:
>
> Any reason *not* to use 5 digits?
The extra character, or using hex, seems worth the future flexibility. We want
to be able to assign new codes, rather than reusing old ones, when error
messages change in future versions.
Allocating 50 mess
On 30 Nov 2011, at 9:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> I'm not suggesting changing the alpha prefix. Just block out
> ranges so that any listing of the codes is grouped by module that
> emits them.
From my experience, any attempt at grouping some kind of numbering like this
normally results a
On Nov 30, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Jim Riggs wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> The XML interface for the balancer manager has, admittedly, lagged
>> behind...
>>
>> Anyone have cycles and/or talent to bring it up to snuff? If not,
>> I'll try to muddle thru it ;)
>
> As
On 30 Nov 2011, at 9:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 11/30/2011 5:03 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> +%{c}a
>> +Actual remote IP-address and port (see the
>> +mod_remoteip module)
>> +
>
> I thought we had this discussion... the words "actual" and "effective"
> are misnomers. Remote
On 11/30/2011 5:03 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
+%{c}a
+Actual remote IP-address and port (see the
+mod_remoteip module)
+
I thought we had this discussion... the words "actual" and "effective"
are misnomers. Remote peer IP is what you were attempting to say.
There are not necessarily two;
On 11/30/2011 2:09 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Am 30.11.2011 01:51, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 11/29/2011 5:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Currently my scripts produces:
http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-numbers.diff
http://people.apac
On 29.11.2011 23:23, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Kaspar Brand wrote:
>> I have committed the patches in r1207758 (for Apache::Test) and
>> r1207759 (adjustments to the t/ssl tests).
>
> Nice, works here now. Thanks.
FYI: Torsten pointed out a potential problem with the so
On 27 Nov 2011, at 17:14, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Yes, that would be a good idea and I agree with Daniel that we should use a
> distinct prefix or format. We currently have around 2700 calls to
> *_log_?error in trunk, so a 4-digit number should be ok. Together with for
> example AH as prefix f
On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The XML interface for the balancer manager has, admittedly, lagged
> behind...
>
> Anyone have cycles and/or talent to bring it up to snuff? If not,
> I'll try to muddle thru it ;)
As I mentioned to Jim at ApacheCon, I have a 2.2 patch for this
Hi all,
I am currently getting this when attempting to build trunk:
Undefined symbols:
"_ap_proxy_retry_worker", referenced from:
_find_best_byrequests in
libmod_lbmethod_byrequests.a(mod_lbmethod_byrequests.o)
_find_best_hb in libmod_lbmethod_heartbeat.a(mod_lbmethod_heartbeat.o)
The XML interface for the balancer manager has, admittedly, lagged
behind...
Anyone have cycles and/or talent to bring it up to snuff? If not,
I'll try to muddle thru it ;)
On Nov 29, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
>> --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h (original)
>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h Tue Nov 29 21:14:08
>> 2011
>> @@ -88,6 +88,11 @@ enum enctype {
>> */
>> #define DEFAULT_MAX_FORWARDS-1
>>
>> +typedef struct proxy
On 11/30/2011 2:09 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Another thought: Would having the AH0815 numbers verbatim in the
> source actually hurt search engine users because they get hits on
> svn.apache.org, github, and whatever. Maybe a macro that hides the
> actual form would be better?
>
> #define APLO
On 30 Nov 2011, at 1:26 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> Author: minfrin
>> Date: Wed Nov 30 11:21:43 2011
>> New Revision: 1208384
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1208384&view=rev
>> Log:
>> mod_cache: Revert
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revisi
On 23 Nov 2011, at 1:15 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> In order to make invalidation possible, we would need to add an invalidate()
> function to the mod_cache provider, and keep AP_CACHE_INVALIDATE inside
> ap_cache_status_e. Invalidation involves marking the entry as invalidated and
> "to be fre
- Original Message -
> Author: minfrin
> Date: Wed Nov 30 11:21:43 2011
> New Revision: 1208384
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1208384&view=rev
> Log:
> mod_cache: Revert
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1070179
> as per the following thread:
> http://www.g
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:09, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Am 30.11.2011 01:51, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
>> > On 11/29/2011 5:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> >> Currently my scripts produces:
>> >>
>> >> http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-
> ap_log_error(..., APLOGNO(0815) "foo went wrong", ...);
great idea on avoiding svn.a.o search hits.
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 29.11.2011 23:30, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > But my point remains, that we allocate each module a block of
> > some 50 codes, such that mod_aaa gets AHM-0049 and mod_aab
> > gets 50-99, etc.
>
> How will 3rd-party modules be getting the
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Am 30.11.2011 01:51, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
> > On 11/29/2011 5:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> >> Currently my scripts produces:
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-numbers.diff
> >> http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-num
24 matches
Mail list logo
