On 5/22/2015 8:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
There might be others who test when some
Hi Jeff,
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:21 PM, wrote:
>
> + trawick: It still looks to me that an error with ap_pass_brigade
> (towards
> + client) can turn into a 400 error, which is what I was
> concerned
> + about originally.
I don't see where this can happen, but
1) In other code I see
EC_KEY_free(ecdh);
after
EC_KEY *ecdh = EC_KEY_new_by_curve_name(...)
and using ecdh, e.g. in
SSL_CTX_set_tmp_ecdh(mctx->ssl_ctx, eckey);
Should we add the free? Or is it not needed? Anyone knows why?
This was added in r1666363:
* mod_ssl: fix small memory lea
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> 2) In modules/ssl/ssl_private.h I see
>
> /**
> * The following features all depend on TLS extension support.
> * Within this block, check again for features (not version numbers).
> */
> #if !defined(OPENSSL_NO_TLSEXT) && defined(SSL_s
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> 1) In other code I see
>
> EC_KEY_free(ecdh);
>
> after
>
> EC_KEY *ecdh = EC_KEY_new_by_curve_name(...)
> and using ecdh, e.g. in
> SSL_CTX_set_tmp_ecdh(mctx->ssl_ctx, eckey);
>
> Should we add the free? Or is it not needed? Anyone kno
1) In other code I see
EC_KEY_free(ecdh);
after
EC_KEY *ecdh = EC_KEY_new_by_curve_name(...)
and using ecdh, e.g. in
SSL_CTX_set_tmp_ecdh(mctx->ssl_ctx, eckey);
Should we add the free? Or is it not needed? Anyone knows why?
2) In modules/ssl/ssl_private.h I see
/**
* The following
Hi All,
Please test and vote the SO_REUSEPORT patch available at
http://people.apache.org/~ylavic/httpd-2.4.x-ap_listeners_buckets-v3.patch.
We are only lacking 1 vote now.
Thank you very much!
Yingqi
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Sent: Friday, May
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
>> gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
>
>
> There might be others who test when something seems appropriate to them
> and
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
> gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
There might be others who test when something seems appropriate to them and
they have time ;)
> I tried, but I never got
> even to the point
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 2:51 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> I think this has sat enough in STATUS that I'll commit by lazy consensus
> prior to tag and roll of 2.2.30, unless anyone has a legitimate
> correction/objection?
>
>
IMO it is appropriate to use CTR in the stable branches with
platform-
+1
On 22 May 2015 at 08:51, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> I think this has sat enough in STATUS that I'll commit by lazy consensus
> prior to tag and roll of 2.2.30, unless anyone has a legitimate
> correction/objection?
>
> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
> y
I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win. I tried, but I never got
even to the point of getting it to even compile/build much
less to a point where I could *test* :)
> On May 22, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 May 2015 01:51:
Some backports are lacking just 1 vote before we can merge them
in!
Test and Vote!!
On Fri, 22 May 2015 01:51:49 -0500
William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
> years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable drift
> between trunk/2.4 and 2.2 flavors. We already included the
> ported-afterwards function
There are some "conversations" going on in the STATUS file
that should be done on dev@ instead, imo at least :)
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:07 AM, wrote:
> Author: rjung
> Date: Fri May 22 08:07:39 2015
> New Revision: 1681029
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1681029
> Log:
> Me too, me too, ...
[]
>
[]
> - +1: trawick, ylavic, wrowe
> + +1: trawick, ylavic, wrowe, rjung
:D
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 8:56 AM, wrote:
>> Author: wrowe
>> Date: Fri May 22 06:56:04 2015
>> New Revision: 1681006
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1681006
>> Log:
>>
>> Vote up one patch, presume lazy concensus on second patch (platform
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:11 AM, wrote:
>
> Bumps. Yes - this - a clean 2.2 proposal please, TIA
Done in r1681022.
I mentioned this w.r.t. a 2.2 STATUS entry, that it is not a good place for
a long-winded dialog...
But when it comes to STATUS and CHANGES, come on... the project has an 80
col style (76 if you want to remain legible through svn diff and similar)...
I'd like to review, but AFAICT this isn't a pr
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 8:56 AM, wrote:
> Author: wrowe
> Date: Fri May 22 06:56:04 2015
> New Revision: 1681006
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1681006
> Log:
>
> Vote up one patch, presume lazy concensus on second patch (platform specific
> with two affirmative reviewers)
>
>
> Modified:
>
At some point, after a proposal has repeatedly morphed, the STATUS entry
has to be trashed and restarted from a fresh point of concensus.
The mod_log_config suggestions are at that point. If nobody else acts by
the weekend, I'm moving it all to "Stalled".
21 matches
Mail list logo
