On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> [Bill, you definitely should do something with your email client, e.g.
> using plain text only, replying to your messages breaks indentation
> level (like the number of '>' preceding/according to the initial
> message)].
>
(Again, it's gmail,
I am experimenting with contention between lower/higher priority HTTP/2
streams, and I think I am noticing that high-priority frames are not given
high priority (quickly enough)
The process is: Download dummy page A, which, after onLoad, Prefetches 8
objects (5MB each) at low priority. While the
[Bill, you definitely should do something with your email client, e.g.
using plain text only, replying to your messages breaks indentation
level (like the number of '>' preceding/according to the initial
message)].
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:28 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> On Dec 24, 2016 07:
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:35 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> Our adoption is *broadly* based on the OS distributions
> from vendors, not from people picking up our sources.
> Yes - some integrate directly from source, and others
> use a non-OS distribution.
>
I think a significant number of user
On Dec 24, 2016 08:32, "Eric Covener" wrote:
> I'm not saying we don't do one so we can do the other; I'm
> saying we do both, at the same time, in parallel. I still
> don't understand why that concept is such an anathema to some
> people.
I also worry about our ability to deliver a 3.0 with eno
On Dec 24, 2016 07:57, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2016, at 8:29 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On 12/23/2016 03:52 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Personally, I don't think that backporting stuff to
>> 2.4 prevents or disallows development on 2.6/3.0. In
>> fact, I think it helps. We can easily
On Dec 28, 2016 10:34, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
Specific
Revision
Of all Most
Recent
Of m.m Of all
Apache/1.3.x 391898 3.33% 1.3.42 42392 10.82% 0.36%
Apache/2.0.x 551117 4.68% 2.0.64 36944 6.70% 0.31%
Apache/2.2.x 7129391 60.49% 2.2.31 1332448 18.78% 11.31%
Apache/2.4.x 3713364 31.51% 2.4.17+
Hi Jim,
Talk to Google and the OpenOffice Team, that was a paste from OpenOffice
Calc.
I'll be happy to start summarizing as a shared Google sheet.
Cheers,
Bill
On Dec 28, 2016 14:22, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
> Bill, I don't know if it's just my Email client or not (doesn't
> look like it) bu
Bill, I don't know if it's just my Email client or not (doesn't
look like it) but could you fix your Email client? It's impossible to
reply and have the quoted parts parsed out correctly. I think
it's to do w/ your messages being RTF or something.
Thx!
Included is an example of how a Reply misses
William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:46:51
-0600):
>On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>> Do not underestimate the influence of control panels. On all my Centos
>> servers I am running Directadmin. DA always offers to upgrade to the
>> latest releas
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> cPanel too... They are moving to EA4 which is Apache 2.4.
>
If not moved yet, that example wouldn't be helpful, it reinforces my point
four years later. But EA itself seems to track pretty closely to the most
contemperanious versions, looks
I would simply add a note to the header of mod_remoteip
> On Dec 28, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
>
> On 12/28/2016 7:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Sounds good... We could simply move the filter aspects over to
>> mod_remoteip and save us a module :)
>
> This may be a naive ques
On 12/28/2016 7:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Sounds good... We could simply move the filter aspects over to
> mod_remoteip and save us a module :)
This may be a naive question, but how would the copyright for such mixed
copyright sources be handled in the file for such a case?
--
Daniel Rugger
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote:
> William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 27 Dec 2016 23:35:50
> -0600):
> >But the vast majority of httpd, nginx, and yes - even IIS
> >users are all running what they were handed from their
> >OS distribution.
>
> Do not underestim
cPanel too... They are moving to EA4 which is Apache 2.4.
So the idea that supplemental (ie: 2.4.x->2.4.y) patches don't
have the reach or range of larger ones (2.4.x->2.6/3.0) isn't
quite accurate.
IMO, people who are comfortable with "whatever the OS provides"
aren't the ones we are talking abo
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> I guess we just got unlucky when this overlap was "fixed" before since
>>> the order is not deterministic. I don't think we'll break anyone by
>>> making wstunnell try first.
>>
>> I'm n
William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 27 Dec 2016 23:35:50
-0600):
>But the vast majority of httpd, nginx, and yes - even IIS
>users are all running what they were handed from their
>OS distribution.
Do not underestimate the influence of control panels. On all my Centos
servers I am r
+1
> On Dec 28, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>> I guess we just got unlucky when this overlap was "fixed" before since
>>> the order is not deterministic. I don't think we'll break anyone by
>>> making wstunnell try first.
>>
>>
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> I guess we just got unlucky when this overlap was "fixed" before since
>> the order is not deterministic. I don't think we'll break anyone by
>> making wstunnell try first.
>
> I'm not sure the different schemes ("https" vs "wss") would allow
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> I guess we just got unlucky when this overlap was "fixed" before since
> the order is not deterministic. I don't think we'll break anyone by
> making wstunnell try first.
I'm not sure the different schemes ("https" vs "wss") would allow both
I guess we just got unlucky when this overlap was "fixed" before since
the order is not deterministic. I don't think we'll break anyone by
making wstunnell try first.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Eric Covener
Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Web socket
> On Dec 26, 2016, at 10:30 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
>
> On 12/26/2016 3:42 PM, j...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: jim
>> Date: Mon Dec 26 21:42:26 2016
>> New Revision: 1776076
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1776076&view=rev
>> Log:
>> revert back... no conflict w/ name
>>
>>
22 matches
Mail list logo
