On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> What changed is:
> 1. SSLProxy* directives are now per directory (restricted to
> Server/VirtualHost and ), so all the internal struct members
> have been move from SSLSrvConfigRec to SSLDirConfigRec;
> 2. The merge
Le 20/04/2016 11:59, ic...@apache.org a écrit :
Author: icing
Date: Wed Apr 20 09:59:15 2016
New Revision: 1740084
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1740084=rev
Log:
compilation fixes for VC
Modified:
httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http2/h2_bucket_beam.c
> On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:29 AM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 20.04.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Stefan Eissing
Yes, you are correct. Had not covered that test in my test suite...
Fixed in r1740119.
Thanks!
-Stefan
> Am 20.04.2016 um 13:24 schrieb Michael Kaufmann :
>
>> Done in r1740075.
>>
>
> I think that commit introduced a small bug, because the "for" loop is left
>
> Am 20.04.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Stefan Eissing
>> wrote:
>>> Done in r1740075.
>>>
>>> I was thinking of a
Done in r1740075.
I think that commit introduced a small bug, because the "for" loop is
left when "h2" is seen and "report_all" is false. There may be other
protocols that are more preferred than the current one.
Suggested change:
Index: server/protocol.c
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Stefan Eissing
> wrote:
>> Done in r1740075.
>>
>> I was thinking of a nicer solution, but that involved inventing new hooks
>> which seems not worth it.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Stefan Eissing
wrote:
> Done in r1740075.
>
> I was thinking of a nicer solution, but that involved inventing new hooks
> which seems not worth it.
>
> Since this area of protocol negotiation has already been talked about in
>
Zitat von Stefan Eissing :
Done in r1740075.
I was thinking of a nicer solution, but that involved inventing new
hooks which seems not worth it.
Since this area of protocol negotiation has already been talked
about in regard to TLS upgrades and websockets, I
Done in r1740075.
I was thinking of a nicer solution, but that involved inventing new hooks which
seems not worth it.
Since this area of protocol negotiation has already been talked about in regard
to TLS upgrades and websockets, I do not want to invest in the current way of
handling this too
10 matches
Mail list logo