Hi,
I see test errors in #1 and #3 in t/ssl/ocsp.t.
Does anyone else see it?
Looking deeper at the output (i.e. --verbose), it looks like the issue
is in the test itself.
All conditions seem to be there, but I need to turn:
my $message = $r->message();
into:
my $message = $r->content()
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:49 PM Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.38:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
[ ] -
Thank you, folks. I apologize again for the embarrassing mistake.
Will be sending along the updated vote email in a few seconds.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On 2019-01-17 12:30, Yann Ylavic wrote:
We should at the same 2.4.x state as before the release try now, I
think the script(s) can be restarted wit
We should at the same 2.4.x state as before the release try now, I
think the script(s) can be restarted with the correct tag/version
(2.4.38! ;) ) as if it were the first time.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:05 PM William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> An aside r.e. subversion;
>
> Just please don't do what gst
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:07 PM William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:03 PM Daniel Ruggeri
> wrote:
>
>>
>> We had a commit after the tag,
>
>
> There are no tags. They are figments of your imagination :) When we
> publish a tarball (even just under /dev/dist/), then we have a t
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:03 PM Daniel Ruggeri
wrote:
>
> We had a commit after the tag,
There are no tags. They are figments of your imagination :) When we
publish a tarball (even just under /dev/dist/), then we have a tag.
Please svn rm the errant 2.4.39 tag.
so I've updated only the STATU
An aside r.e. subversion;
Just please don't do what gstein has warned us against. I've performed
the ill-advised jump-over abandoned work in the past;
svn rm ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
svn cp ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk@123456 ^/httpd/mod_foo/trunk
attempting to drop activity between 123457 and present
Yes indeed - too true! I'll be adding a failsafe for this in the scripts
so it won't happen again.
We had a commit after the tag, so I've updated only the STATUS/CHANGES
files to correct the errant lines. I also svn rm'ed the extra tree under
the 2.4.28 tag.
I'll redo in about 30 more minute
On 1/17/19 6:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ahhh good.
On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem. There
is,
in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we
Ahhh good.
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:46 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem.
>> There is,
>> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real"
>> 2.
One problem with scripts, they do just what they are told.
You just tagged 2.4.39 as 2.4.38.
Please revert to 2.4.38 and tag - until the tarballs are published to vote
on,
it's all development in svn history.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:48 AM wrote:
> Author: druggeri
> Date: Thu Jan 17 17:48:4
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:44 AM Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem.
> There is,
> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real"
> 2.4.28 tag... :(
Not destroyed, as ylavic observed.
Nothing gets destroyed i
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:44 PM Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem.
> There is,
> in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real"
> 2.4.28 tag... :(
Fortunately it just created tags/2.4.28/2.4.x since tags/2.
Ahhh, true. Adjusted message appropriately.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:44 AM Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:36 PM wrote:
> >
> > Author: wrowe
> > Revision: 1851549
> > Modified property: svn:log
> >
> > Modified: svn:log at Thu Jan 17 17:36:04 2019
> >
> ---
Note that simply changing the commit msg logs does not solve the problem. There
is,
in fact, no 2.4.38 tag at all. And I'm guessing we destroyed the "real" 2.4.28
tag... :(
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:36 PM wrote:
>
> Author: wrowe
> Revision: 1851549
> Modified property: svn:log
>
> Modified: svn:log at Thu Jan 17 17:36:04 2019
> --
> --- svn:log (original)
> +++ svn:log Thu Jan 17 17:36:04 20
See no tarball at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
Also in SVN and Subject of theis mauk I see 2.4.28 instead of 2.4.28
On 17-01-19 18:13, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
Sorry make the same mistake :)
See no tarball at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I was used to see the URL http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ also there
no tarball
Also in SVN and Subject of this mail I see 2.4.28 instead of 2.4.38
On 17-01-19 18:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Sho
On 2019-01-17 11:24, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Shouldn't this be 2.4.38??
On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:13 PM, Daniel Ruggeri
wrote:
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days
Shouldn't this be 2.4.38??
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:13 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>
> Hi, all;
> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this candidate
> ta
2.4.28?
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 12:08 PM, drugg...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Author: druggeri
> Date: Thu Jan 17 17:08:22 2019
> New Revision: 1851549
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1851549&view=rev
> Log:
> Tag HEAD of 2.4.x as 2.4.28
>
> Added:
>httpd/httpd/tags/2.4.28/2.4.x/ (prop
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 4:03 AM Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:02:01PM -0600, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> > Doesn't this simply gloss over an underlying defect?
> >
> > [...]
> > if (apr_dbm_fetch(f, key, &val) == APR_SUCCESS && val.dptr) {
> > *value = apr_pstrmemdup(po
Hi, all;
Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
candidate tarball as 2.4.28:
[ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
[ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
[ ] -
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:02:01PM -0600, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Doesn't this simply gloss over an underlying defect?
>
> [...]
> if (apr_dbm_fetch(f, key, &val) == APR_SUCCESS && val.dptr) {
> *value = apr_pstrmemdup(pool, val.dptr, val.dsize);
> }
>
> apr_dbm_close(f);
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
