candidates!) that you were able to participate in, seemed unusually
difficult
to make it this far, but here we are at last.
Yours,
Bill
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.31, can be found
The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.31, can be found in;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
+/-1
[ ] Release 2.2.31 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
Win32 src to follow in an hour this round. With such an insignificant
set of changes to a generally approved 2.2.30
On Jul 11, 2015 10:29 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found
in;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
[+1] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
The PROXY_DECLARE bug doesn't seem
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Jul 11, 2015 10:29 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found
in;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
[+1] Release
Hi Jim,
This commit breaks our website, since the mirror they are directed to may
or may not contain the current advertised 2.4.12 based on exactly when that
specific mirror rsync's.
Please hold off 24 hours before committing the svn rm side of the svn mv in
the future... so that mirrors still
On Jul 14, 2015 10:16 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks/Sorry :(
Entirely my fault, I was in sync with progress to late last evening, and
skimmed the morning thread. No objections to reworking the release,
although my schedule keeps getting interrupted.
Later this evening it
On Jul 10, 2015 4:34 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.16 can be found
at the usual place:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.16 GA.
[X] +1: Good to go
Thx!
And
The pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache httpd 2.2.30, can be found in;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
+/-1
[ ] Release 2.2.30 GA (apr 1.5.2, apr-util 1.5.4)
Win32 src to follow shortly, vote to run through 14:30 GMT Tuesday.
We can have a dialog about the best behavior of our default config.
However...
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Kaspar Brand httpd-dev.2...@velox.ch
wrote:
On 01.07.2015 14:27, Ben Laurie wrote:
On 1 November 2014 at 09:05, Kaspar Brand httpd-dev.2...@velox.ch
wrote:
The fundamental
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Stefan Eissing
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de wrote:
FYI: just checked in a modules/http2 that takes part in the build
process, similar options as mod_ssl
--enable-h2
--with-nghttp2=path
Tests were removed, so all sandbox/* is gone. Instead, I
/framework/ a bit later on if it's possible.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Stefan Eissing
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de wrote:
Am 10.07.2015 um 17:04 schrieb William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Stefan Eissing
stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de wrote:
FYI: just
(Friday) to
give 2.4 some time to settle and for people to test/review before
we burn another tag :)
On Jul 8, 2015, at 8:58 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
It appears that STATUS has been effectively resolved on both branches,
nothing significant that doesn't alter APIs
My only hint, if you can structure the commits to single purposes (e.g.
relocate files, then a commit to merge new testcases, etc...) that is
helpful. In particular - split code changes from the general reorg so it
is easier to follow, much as you can see we split committing xml docs
source
On Jul 8, 2015 6:59 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
However maybe the proposed backport about mod_reqtimeout (PR 56729) is
worth being included too, but that's not a showstopper.
It somehow made his way through 2.2.30 already (r1678698) but for
2.4.x this partial fix isn't enough
It appears that STATUS has been effectively resolved on both branches,
nothing significant that doesn't alter APIs/Directives in a significant way
is ignored, and we seem to be at a stable point for a TR. One nice patch
from Eric could use a vote/backport, but it is anything but critical.
Jim,
2.4 still needs one reviewer to make the decision so we can have a 2.4, at
last.
Thanks to Mike for the review on the 2.2 showstopper, jumping ahead on
tarballs for 2.2.30 in the morning.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:38 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Hope everyone enjoyed a nice
Hope everyone enjoyed a nice weekend, and a good holiday for those here in
the States!
On 2.4, one significant issue remains unsettled...
*) mod_alias: Limit Redirect expressions to directory (Location) context
and redirect statuses (implicit or explicit).
trunk patch:
On Jul 3, 2015 7:35 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:13 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Just to clarify,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:26 AM, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Tue Jun 30 15:26:16 2015
New Revision: 1688474
On Jul 3, 2015 9:37 AM, Rob Stradling rob.stradl...@comodo.com wrote:
On 03/07/15 11:13, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote:
snip
Thanks for the detailed explanation. So yes OCSP stapling is really
beneficial
if it is possible for the server admin to set it up. But it likely
requires
Just to clarify,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:26 AM, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Tue Jun 30 15:26:16 2015
New Revision: 1688474
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1688474
Log:
Fold in git archive master of mod_h2 (latest commit 11905f474e)
from https://github.com/icing/mod_h2 as per
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: benlau...@gmail.com [mailto:benlau...@gmail.com] Im Auftrag von
Ben Laurie
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Juli 2015 14:27
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff:
I can't approve this semantic mess.
EITHER it is inherit_before on trunk-2.4-2.2 with a change of default
behavior, or it is inherit_after, again across all branches with a change
of default behavior. The delta should consist of a one line difference,
evaluating inheritance behavior within the
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
You ALWAYS preserve unset state. How else do you perform the THIRD merge?
To be more specific, httpd is allowed to merge whatever merges it likes.
If it wants
to optimize for the directory and then merge the base
For 2.2/2.4 the delta is a one line change to trunk's behavior;
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:27 PM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Tue Jun 30 01:27:42 2015
New Revision: 1688339
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1688339
Log:
Very difficult to read, and therefore was wrong.
Assert
You ALWAYS preserve unset state. How else do you perform the THIRD merge?
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
This won't work for eg, this second level inheritance: server context
is on, vhost and inner Location are unset.
Location-inherit_before will
, 2015 at 2:03 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
I can't approve this semantic mess.
EITHER it is inherit_before on trunk-2.4-2.2 with a change of default
behavior, or it is inherit_after, again across all branches with a
change of
default behavior. The delta should consist
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:01 PM, André Malo n...@perlig.de wrote:
* Yann Ylavic wrote:
It seems that RedirectMatch isn't documented without the third (URL)
argument, unless in Location.
Huh? Actually it is (or maybe I'm not getting something here). I checked at
least back until 2.0.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe defining (naming) inherit_before tristate values would help:
Not really...
+a-inherit_before = (over-inherit_before == INHERIT_ON
+ || (over-inherit_before == INHERIT_UNSET
+
Just a quick observation on the patch, you know you can use a tristate to
avoid an int?
Simply set the value to 2 in the config-create (the enum being off=0, on=1,
unset=2), check for RHS 'unset' during the merge, and in the feature toggle
test, explicitly check test for == of the non-default
On Jun 24, 2015 8:39 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
I believe we should be treating the “pseudo” connections as real
connections, and perhaps by linking a “subconnection” to a “connection”
(c-main) in the same
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:42 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Jun 18, 2015 1:45 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Jun 11, 2015 8:22 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:08 AM William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
If asking about crash-bugs on dev@, could you please include the backtrace?
.pdb symbols make it useful, while
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff551063(v=vs.85).aspx
shows how to load the user.dmp file and produce that backtrace.
User in that link seems to be changing
A sort of unusual case though, first fix is a docs patch, then a test case
for the newly-documented 16 year old behavior :) +1 to the collected
feedback and plan.
On Jun 22, 2015 9:32 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Agreed. We should also, everytime we catch something like this,
add a
You are correct, however the syntax never illustrated this.
It seems we need two syntaxes, not a [target] optional argument.
On Jun 22, 2015 2:02 PM, André Malo n...@perlig.de wrote:
* Yann Ylavic wrote:
It seems that RedirectMatch isn't documented without the third (URL)
argument, unless
Reindl,
Try reverting http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1663259
and see if this resolves your observed defect.
On Jun 21, 2015 12:53 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
in fact RedirectMatch is *completly* broken
RedirectMatch 404 ^\/something\/$
and *any* URI
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 21.06.2015 um 21:02 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
It seems that RedirectMatch isn't documented without the third (URL)
argument, unless in Location.
All the way back to 1.3... the fact that it worked at all was a
On Jun 18, 2015 1:45 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Jun 11, 2015 8:22 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:08 AM William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
But withholding a security fix for legacy server users? Sounds like a
way
In some cases, perhaps, but this was objection asked-and-answered so my -1
was void.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:39 PM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Thu Jun 18 15:39:53 2015
New Revision: 1686248
On Jun 11, 2015 8:22 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:08 AM William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
But withholding a security fix for legacy server users? Sounds like a
way to earn distrust of the user community, not reassure them that 2.4.14
On Jun 15, 2015 6:11 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:33 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Reviewing the spec, I cannot find where Sambar server is permitted to
insert whitespace. I further reviewed the ABNF appendix, and it does not
appear
Note in STATUS I've requested that you split the approved patch from
security@ that seemed to be lost in long and winding patch versioning from
the spaces accepted. A patch should correct one thing, not several, it
makes these too difficult to review when folks have a small window of free
time.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else inclined to just remove the message? It's a deprecation that
didn't happen on a release boundary. AFAICT there's no reason to change how
you run your server unless you use two different cert chains and then
On Jun 15, 2015 1:26 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 15 Jun 2015, at 7:00 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
1.3 (or 1.3-based servers) put whitespace there.
1.3.x, 2.0.x, 2.2.x, and 2.4.x (for all released x so far) accepts
whitespace there.
We can't change that by
Reviewing the spec, I cannot find where Sambar server is permitted to
insert whitespace. I further reviewed the ABNF appendix, and it does not
appear there, either.
The spec seems unambiguous;
chunk = chunk-size [ chunk-ext ] CRLF
chunk-data CRLF
chunk-size =
On Jun 14, 2015 12:45 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I am canceling this vote... The breakage due to the chunked
stuff is the reason.
THIS is the reason I don't like last-minute changes that
(1) touch a LOT of code or a major code path and (2) has an
extremely limited QA history.
Revision 1678233 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs]
Modified Thu May 7 16:26:43 2015 UTC (5 weeks, 1 day ago) by jim
File length: 57106 byte(s)
Diff to previous 1674655 (colored)
Merge r1676085 from trunk:
consistently output SSLCertificateChainFile deprecation warnings
Submitted
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de
wrote:
Am 12.06.2015 um 13:49 schrieb Yann Ylavic:
Hi Christophe,
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Christophe JAILLET
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
should this warning at startup be an issue, why not just remove
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Andy Wang aw...@ptc.com wrote:
Pleading windows ignorance here, but what kind of permissions problem?
Both processes are elevated to administrator via UAC (or with UAC disabled)
and literally as soon as you kill the parent java.exe process, it starts to
work.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Andy Wang aw...@ptc.com wrote:
On 06/11/2015 09:02 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Sounds telling. Can you get your installer to stall without invoking
httpd.exe - and then attempt to start httpd outside of the installer on
the same machine? Something going
This is corrected in SVN, see
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/request.c?view=log
Unsure why this edit didn't carry on to the github mirror.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Rainer Canavan
rainer.cana...@sevenval.com wrote:
Hi,
is the commit message incorrect or the
A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
*Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:54 AM
*Newsgroups:* gmane.comp.apache.devel
*To:* httpd dev@httpd.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Review of 2.2.x security patch sought.
Just a quick /nag that I'm happy to roll 2.2.30 in conjunction with
2.4.14,
so that we present both
It turns off all advanced socket mechanics for accepting connections. That
means
it won't pre-fetch data. Because of how cobbled-together the WinSock
network
stack drivers (third parties, included) were, there are many things that
break
sendfile (disable sendfile) or socket reuse (disable
). This is the
one I especially can't understand. How would launching httpd.exe from a
installer process (java.exe specifically) prevent it from responding to
requests.
Andy
On 06/10/2015 10:48 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
It turns off all advanced socket mechanics for accepting connections
, such
as Watchfire, mapped how other backend and proxy implementations
interacted with httpd itself, CVE-2005-2088 was upgraded to medium
severity. That is a possibility and the reason for requesting review of the
2.2 backport, on an expedited basis.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 3:32 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Andy Wang aw...@ptc.com wrote:
I can reproduce the first case with the installer, pretty much ondemand
using our installer stuff. I've tried reproducing it by ripping out the
actions that do the Runtime.exec() to call httpd.exe into a separate
standalone
I don't entirely understand the patch CHANGES, however...
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:41 AM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
[ start all new proposals below, under PATCHES PROPOSED. ]
* mod_ssl: bring SNI behavior into better conformance with RFC 6066
Committers,
we ended up short on reviewers in the security list, and are proceeding
shortly with 2.4.14.
I can't proceed with 2.2.30 until I get a third set of eyeballs on the
2.2.30-dev backport,
could someone offer to review ASAP? I will be tagging once the backport is
approved,
no other
I've noticed this happening more and more often...
http://httpd.markmail.org/search/?q=+list%3Aorg.apache.httpd.cvs+%22vote+discarded%22
Here's one arbitrary example - there are many committers implicated here...
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS (original) +++
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.13 can be found
at the usual place:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.13 GA.
[X] -1: Danger Will
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:05 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Christophe JAILLET
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
This has been fixed in trunk in r1619453. ( APLOGNO(02805) )
Would you propose the backport? TIA!
And... I see you did
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Christophe JAILLET
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
This has been fixed in trunk in r1619453. ( APLOGNO(02805) )
Would you propose the backport? TIA!
at 12:11 AM, Gregg Smith g...@gknw.net wrote:
On 6/4/2015 10:01 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Gregg Smithg...@gknw.net wrote:
This is new, not quite sure how I didn't see it a few weeks ago as it's 9
weeks old.
Who forgot to fill in the number?
mod_deflate.c
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Gregg Smith g...@gknw.net wrote:
This is new, not quite sure how I didn't see it a few weeks ago as it's 9
weeks old.
Who forgot to fill in the number?
mod_deflate.c(1283) : warning C4003: not enough actual parameters for
macro 'APLOGNO'
I just rechecked
Yes, thanks :)
On Jun 4, 2015 4:43 PM, Rob Stradling rob.stradl...@comodo.com wrote:
s/2.2.13/2.2.30/
?
--
Rob Stradling
Senior Research Development Scientist
COMODO - Creating Trust Online
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Marion Christophe JAILLET
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
I agree that the wording of the Changelog could be more meaningful.
Apparently these functions are only used during conf parsing. So, I propose
to turn is into:
Small speed optimization when
response in some edge
cases, I consider this one important enough to hold up 2.2 tag for some
more hours.
Bill
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:36 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Although there are some cool things
More context at your fingertips without refreshing httpd-2.2 branch,
first...
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57832
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
[Changing subject, don't mean to hijack the 2.4 activity train]
There is a modestly
I tried to reconcile your patch with your svn log entry and I failed.
Could you either correct or explain further?
TIA,
Bill
On Jun 2, 2015 12:40 AM, jaillet...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jailletc36
Date: Tue Jun 2 05:40:57 2015
New Revision: 1683044
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1683044
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Stefan Eissing stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de
wrote:
Hmm, personally, I do not like redundant configurations. If someone
configures a module, like mod_h2, to be enabled (H2Engine on), she could
expect the module to take all the necessary steps. So I am no fan of
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Although there are some cool things that I'd like to see in
2.4.13, I don't want to hold off any longer (plus, those
cool things would be good incentive for a 2.4.14 sooner
rather than later).
I plan to TR 2.4.13 on
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net
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 j...@jagunet.com wrote:
FWIW:
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?
On May 29, 2015 10:26 AM, Mario Brandt jbl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Andy,
it seems that you are right. After cheking the lib I saw
Secondly - when we get to the end of the shorter string; we can either
keep comparing to the last char or \0; or we go ‘modulo’ to the start of
the string. Now modulo is perhaps not ideal; and seems to affect the
pipeline on the XEON cpu (something I confess not to quite understand; and
I cannot
On May 28, 2015 8:38 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com
wrote:
I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote, which would
More data points and history to ponder, with placeholders to reflect the
passage of time;
1998-06-06 Initial 1.3.0 Release
1999-03-24 Stable 1.3.6 Release (last major MMN bump)
2000
2001
2002-04-05 Initial 2.0.35 Release
2002-09-24 Stable 2.0.42 Release (last major MMN bump)
2003
2004
2005-12-01
On May 27, 2015 9:46 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts
threads you can read
in our archives follow the same pattern each time. In general, Jeff's much
more diplomatic answer becomes the consensus, and the project moves on.
To answer your more detailed question;
On May 28, 2015, at 12:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Choose one
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Ubuntu - 14.04 LTS, and Debian 8 (Jessie) got the message, a year ago
April.
RHEL / CentOS 7 aren't even a year old yet.
OpenSUSE 13.1 beat them all to the punch, back in Nov of '13. So that's
the oldest
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On 28/05/2015 14:48, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Enough of this ad-hominem BS... [...]
You've lost the argument and lost respect, you have demonstrated that by
this pathetic and childish response. Just because others
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote, which would
have allowed us to know the potential operating forces on 2.2.x.
We determined from that poll that there were 3 committers who
would fix bugs on 2.2,
On May 26, 2015 10:31 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org
wrote:
On 26 May 2015, at 17:22, Dirk-Willem van Gulik di...@webweaving.org
wrote:
..
So I think that what is needed are two (or three) functions
...
- A string comparison function; where at least one string is is
, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:28:35 +1000
Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
Time to think about EOL'ing 2.2 maybe since its 10 years old and 2.4
has been current stable best production recommendation for what,
about 3.5 years or so now
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus
on 2.4 and the next gen?
Nope, we'll let the internet speak for itself -
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_details/ws-apache/2
We are nowhere near close enough to
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Andy Wang aw...@ptc.com wrote:
On 05/26/2015 11:25 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com
mailto:ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Andy Wang aw...@ptc.com
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Focus your energy on anything you like.
Can't grok whether that's snarky or not... I'll assume not :)
Please assume not :) ASF projects should still remain
scratch-your-own-itch(es).
Your message certainly had an
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:44 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
that date
[X] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
in Nov, '15.
Enough of this ad-hominem
Choose one;
[ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to
that date
[ ] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal
in Nov, '15.
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On 28/05/2015 03:17, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[...] maybe it's time to say that 2.2's era is done, and
2.4's time is here, if not already past. I'm simply trying
to encourage us to work on the future and not focus on
the
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Andy Wang aw...@ptc.com wrote:
# SSL Cipher Suite:
# List the ciphers that the client is permitted to negotiate.
# See the mod_ssl documentation for a complete list.
On May 23, 2015 2:00 AM, rj...@apache.org wrote:
+ 2.2.x patch:
http://people.apache.org/~rjung/patches/httpd-2.2.x-mod_log_config-more_time_formats-v2.patch
+1: rjung, wrowe
+ rjung: I had forgotten the docs part. Added in v2 patch. OK to keep
Bill's vote?
IIRC we treat docs as
I think this has sat enough in STATUS that I'll commit by lazy consensus
prior to tag and roll of 2.2.30, unless anyone has a legitimate
correction/objection?
It might be worth mentioning that it's been in production for about 3-4
years or so, and only was delayed in 2.2 due to the unavoidable
Folks, someone please give this a third pair of eyeballs, the change
discussed in bugzilla is the correct behavior.
* mod_proxy: use the original (non absolute) form of the request-line's
URI
for requests embedded in CONNECT payloads used to connect SSL backends
via
a ProxyRemote
I mentioned this w.r.t. a 2.2 STATUS entry, that it is not a good place for
a long-winded dialog...
But when it comes to STATUS and CHANGES, come on... the project has an 80
col style (76 if you want to remain legible through svn diff and similar)...
I'd like to review, but AFAICT this isn't a
At some point, after a proposal has repeatedly morphed, the STATUS entry
has to be trashed and restarted from a fresh point of concensus.
The mod_log_config suggestions are at that point. If nobody else acts by
the weekend, I'm moving it all to Stalled.
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I think Bill's main point is that other than himself and
gsmith, nobody else tests on MS/Win.
There might be others who test when something seems
My chief concern was that the phrase Common Log has a specific meaning to
us.
ap_mpm_common_log_startup() or something else descriptive would be a better
name, but our crew is famous for not being terrific namers of things :)
Did this compile with no warnings? It seems statics were used without
Proposed for backport on both 2.2 and 2.4 branches.
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:44 PM, wr...@apache.org wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Thu May 14 18:44:52 2015
New Revision: 1679428
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1679428
Log:
Conform to RFC 7525, with additional suggestion to drop RSA Kx ciphers
FWIW...
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote:
From my perspective - as a simple packager (re: openssl - old versions) I
run into the problem of only being able to get to 0.9.8.k (AIX 5.3 TL12)
So, an operating system that has been unsupported for the past 2
to take a more in-depth look at 2.4... But I am +1 for
a release v. soon.
Yeah, I'll RM 2.4
On Apr 30, 2015, at 5:52 PM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:46 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:49:47 -0400
Jim
Here is my proposed global config for httpd.conf.in for 2.4 and 2.2, which
I believe mirrors the 'MUST' of RFC 7525. This includes restoring the
SSLProtocol -SSLv3 for 2.4 so that it is plainly visible, irrespective of
system defaults.
For trunk, I propose we drop TLSv1 and TLSv1.1 protocols and
1301 - 1400 of 6128 matches
Mail list logo
