On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Daniel Ruggeri
wrote:
> P.S.
> I'm not a Member or PMC... do I have access to the report that spurred
> the conversation?
>
Adding the context back to the thread...
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> FWIW: It was this month's PMC status r
> On 27 May 2015, at 13:54, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2
> and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so
> it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later...
Depends on what EOL means p
On 5/30/2015 1:47 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:> Thinking about this more,
what are the things preventing people from an
> _easy_ upgrade path configuration-wise? A lot of this conversation
> surrounded users and the impact of an upgrade to them. The interface for
> the users' to the server is the conf
On 5/28/2015 2:54 PM, Jim Riggs wrote:
> Having to expend effort (e.g. re-design/update config and deployment)
to switch/update/upgrade to a new paradigm does not, IMO, mean that it's
not a solution for everyone. Anyone can take the time to implement and
automate the switch. Once that effort has be
Argh, I forgot to include the link to the message! Sorry about
that.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201504.mbox/%3c20150428165148.ga17...@kiribati.inrialpes.fr%3E
-jk
Hi!
A gentle reminder that I had submitted this patch and would like
to know if someone has had time to review it and/or would like
further modifications.
Should I add a bugzilla entry so that it doesn't fall under the radar?
Thanks! Kudos.
-jk
Am 29.05.2015 um 18:36 schrieb Wang, Andy:
It didn't break api compatibly but it sure did break backwards compatibility.
I'm pretty sure if you link against 1.0.2 you can't run with an older 1.0.x
library. Which is what appears to happen in Mario's case.
That's correct. If the app or lib you
Am 29.05.2015 um 18:30 schrieb William A Rowe Jr:
Don't be fooled.
OpenSSL 1.0.1 did not break binary compatibility, the lib designation
remains .so.1.0.0. Can someone confirm whether this was changed in 1.0.2?
As I already wrote it didn't.
Rainer
