> On Dec 29, 2015, at 5:14 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>
> Directive names, yes. Directive arguments - not as much.
Yeah... that's what I said. We know our names :)
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> In a sep thread on dev@apr, OtherBill appears to be trying to
> >> determine the "right" name for the APR impl... maub
There is a somewhat easy way to do this via leveraging the
functionality of SetEnvIfExpr. For example, what I am testing
is the idea of:
SetEnvIfCond "-R '10.0.0.0/8' || -R '172.16.0.0/12' || -R
'192.168.0.0/16'" rfc1918
Which creates and stores *but does not evaluate* the above expressi
Just a note that I've started committing my mod_proxy health
check module work... it is still a work-in-progress but the
goal is to always ensure that trunk is buildable and usable.
Right now, the module needs to be explicitly enabled during
configuration and all specific health-checks are basicall
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> PS: What determines "abusive" usage?
>>
>> When used to compare something which is not a HTTP token or a scheme
>> (eg.
> On Dec 29, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> In a sep thread on dev@apr, OtherBill appears to be trying to
>> determine the "right" name for the APR impl... maube we should
>> wait to see what it's decided on there and we can fo
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> In a sep thread on dev@apr, OtherBill appears to be trying to
> determine the "right" name for the APR impl... maube we should
> wait to see what it's decided on there and we can follow
> suit.
OK, although we won't be able to use APR's func
In a sep thread on dev@apr, OtherBill appears to be trying to
determine the "right" name for the APR impl... maube we should
wait to see what it's decided on there and we can follow
suit.
PS: What determines "abusive" usage?
> On Dec 29, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 29,
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ping.
>
> Just a reminder that right now, trunk uses ap_casecmpstr[n](),
> which can make some backport requests "problematic" due to
> possible merge conflicts.
I've just committed (in r1722150) more reverts of abusive
ap_casecmpstr[n]() us
ping.
Just a reminder that right now, trunk uses ap_casecmpstr[n](),
which can make some backport requests "problematic" due to
possible merge conflicts.
Can we *please* decide what we are doing?
trunk is starting to accumulate a bunch of kruft, which
will make it difficult when we decide to sta
Gone in r1722074. Was added by the original import.
> Am 28.12.2015 um 18:01 schrieb Eric Covener :
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Jacob Perkins
> wrote:
>> We found a .gitignore file ./modules/http2 that is removing the MakeFile
>> from the sources. Was this supposed to be merged in? It’
11 matches
Mail list logo