> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:08 PM
> Sander Striker wrote:
>
> > I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be
> > greatly appreciated.
>
> The new httpd has been running live on daedalus since Thursday, 03-Jul-2003
> 1
on 7/3/03 3:34, Sander Striker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be
> greatly appreciated.
Built on Darwin 6.6 (MacOSX 10.2.6), gcc 3.3, the following configure line:
#! /bin/sh
#
# Created by configure
CFLAGS="-DDEBUG -O0 -DDYNAMIC_MODU
Sander Striker wrote:
I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be
greatly appreciated.
The new httpd has been running live on daedalus since Thursday, 03-Jul-2003
11:48:45 PDT. So far, so good.
Greg
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be
greatly appreciated.
will do.
I haven't been following the lists too closely lately (day job + personal
upheaval) so I appreciate the off list email.
Cheers,
Greg
Sander Striker wrote:
I just tagged STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE3. I think this is going to be
our .44. It would be nice to give it one more day on daedalus
and get some +1s on it.
+1 for release as 2.0.44, and thanks for your efforts.
Greg
Please don't remove AGB_BEFORE_AAA_CHANGES until after the next few -2.0
releases.
-aaron
On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 02:55 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one
and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just
mo
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I just tagged STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE3. I think this is going to be
our .44. It would be nice to give it one more day on daedalus
and get some +1s on it.
But we're running _PRE2 now and there are bunches of changes, my own included.
I'd prefer to see it go longer.
Greg
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one
and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just
move it around to reflect the state of your private tree.
I prefer the current practice with version numbers that change if the content of
At 04:55 PM 1/14/2003, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one
>and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just
>move it around to reflect the state of your private tree.
>
>On a related note, I would like to remove all of the n
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:55 PM
> Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one
> and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just
> move it around to reflect the state of your private tree.
Actu
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:55:14PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one
> and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just
> move it around to reflect the state of your private tree.
>
> On a related note, I would lik
Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one
and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just
move it around to reflect the state of your private tree.
On a related note, I would like to remove all of the non-official
tags that are older than a few months.
> From: Greg Ames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:46 PM
> Sander Striker wrote:
>>> I'll have some time tonight to tag _PRE3, which we should consider
>> to become .44.
>
> I don't know how/what you are planning to tag, but I'd sure like to see my
> server/core.c pa
Sander Striker wrote:
I'll have some time tonight to tag _PRE3, which we should consider
to become .44.
I don't know how/what you are planning to tag, but I'd sure like to see my
server/core.c patch in there to fix the fd leaks on keepalive connections. Last
time I looked, it was the latest
> From: Brad Nicholes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:48 PM
> Just discovered a critical error in Apache for NetWare that prevents
> Apache from being run in protected address space. I have committed the
> fix in os/netware/util_nw.c in the httpd-2.0 branch. Can t
Just discovered a critical error in Apache for NetWare that prevents
Apache from being run in protected address space. I have committed the
fix in os/netware/util_nw.c in the httpd-2.0 branch. Can this fix be
added to the tag?
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading pr
Addition:
from config.log
hostname = p6m7g8.hyatsv01.md.comcast.net
uname -m = i386
uname -r = 5.0-CURRENT
uname -s = FreeBSD
uname -v = FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT #4: Fri Dec 27 03:36:47 GMT 2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PHILIP
Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler
Thread model
cvs co -R -rSTRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2 httpd-2.0
cd httpd-2.0/srclib
cvs co -R -rSTRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2 apr apr-util
cd ..
./buildconf
./configure --prefix=$DIR_INSTALL/apache2-prefork --with-perl=$PERL
--with-mpm=prefork --enable-mods-shared=all --enable-maintainer-mode
--enable-debug --enable-pool-debug=al
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should not be in here, please let me know ASAP.
What about the change in argument types for the APR queue
and hash API? That's the o
Have it running now on Source Mage GNU/Linux (source-based) using Berkeley DB 4.1.25, with this:
Apache/2.0.44-dev (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.44-dev OpenSSL/0.9.6h PHP/4.3.0RC4 mod_python/3.0.1 Python/2.2.2 DAV/2
mod_fastcgi/mod_fastcgi-SNAP-0210222112
All modules are compiled, but the most used standard
I just committed apr-util/include/apu.hnw that changes the #define to
show that APU for NetWare has iconv support. Can this be added to the
tag?
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
>>> attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
>>> point out any problems.
>>
>> uhm. docs-problem ;-)
>
> Thanks for the heads up. I'll correct this in the PRE2 tag.
So
> From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 08 December 2002 00:13
> * Sander Striker wrote:
>
>> I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
>> attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
>> point out any problems.
>
> uhm. docs-problem ;-)
Thanks for t
> This tag builds for me and serves pages at the minimum. I'll
> run the testsuite tomorrow.
I built your tag tonight on my MacOSX 10.2 test box:
Darwin shadow.local. 6.1 Darwin Kernel Version 6.1: Fri Sep 6 23:24:34 PDT
2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.2.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
Built
"Sander Striker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This tag builds for me and serves pages at the minimum. I'll
> run the testsuite tomorrow.
I just rebuilt from the STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 tag and it works
perfectly on NetBSD/i386. The two problems i reported in the
last few days have been resolved.
* Sander Striker wrote:
> I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
> attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
> point out any problems.
uhm. docs-problem ;-)
I forgot to mention:
docs/manual/mod/directives.html.ja.jis (rev. 1.13)
I'm missing:
docs/manual/
* Sander Striker wrote:
> *checks* Ah, I forgot to tag apr*, doing so right now.
ok, thanks :)
nd
--
Real programmers confuse Christmas and Halloween because
DEC 25 = OCT 31. -- Unknown
(found in ssl_engine_mutex.c)
> From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 07 December 2002 12:13
> * Sander Striker wrote:
>
>> I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
>> attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
>> point out any problems.
>
> ehm perhaps a silly question: what
* Sander Striker wrote:
> I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
> attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
> point out any problems.
ehm perhaps a silly question: what apr, apr-util and apr-iconv will be
used? HEAD?
nd
--
sub the($){+shift} sub answer
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
[...]
> Personally, I would just advocate shifting to Subversion. Part of our
> release process injects the revision number into the header file. Thus, the
> tarball always states *precisely* what revision the code came from.
FWIW; for perl5 perforce is used
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 September 2002 01:27
> Sander (& Co)
>
>with .40, we backed out the apr-iconv due to it's not-ready state,
> with the attached patch.
>
>I've been intending to get the openssl/iconv/zlib library linkage stubs
> done for
Sander (& Co)
with .40, we backed out the apr-iconv due to it's not-ready state,
with the attached patch.
I've been intending to get the openssl/iconv/zlib library linkage stubs
done for Win32, but my time's been rather short. I should be able
to attack it late this week or early next wee
What's the current status? Have we tagged for 2.0.41 yet or no? Will this be
happening today/tonight/early tomorrow morning? (IE, I'm installing
subversion and I'd PREFER to grab 2.0.41 and not head.)
On Saturday 07 September 2002 11:12 am, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tagged the tree t
Sander Striker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some
> testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after
> I get some positive feedback on this tag.
>
> Greg, could you bump daedalus to this tag next week to see how
> it holds?
Sure. I was
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 11:21:33PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> Um, the point is we don't want people testing the tags until they have
> been blessed as an alpha.
Hunh? Of course we want people testing the code. I think the problem that
you're trying to avoid is people testing a tag nam
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - - Original Message -
> From: "Aaron Bannert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:22 PM
> Su
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- - Original Message -
From: "Aaron Bannert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Tagged the tree
> If there are enough people like Chris who want sn
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 07:00:27PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> Generally, we do not create tarballs of tags, because the tags are meant
> to be used by developers before the release is rolled. The problem with
> tarballs, is that once they are created, they can be downloaded, and then
> it is very
>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Tagged the tree
>
> Generally, we do not create tarballs of tags, because the tags are
> meant to be used by developers before the release is rolled. The
> problem with tarballs, is that once they are created, they can be
>
Generally, we do not create tarballs of tags, because the tags are meant
to be used by developers before the release is rolled. The problem with
tarballs, is that once they are created, they can be downloaded, and then
it is very difficult to determine which version of the tarball a user
has. B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is it possible to get this
tag as a .tar.gz somewhere on apache.org?
Downloading the tree via CVS is a slow task for my poor modem :)
Chris Taylor - The guy with the PS2 WebServer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PG
Brian Pane wrote:
> Sander Striker wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some
>> testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after
>> I get some positive feedback on this tag.
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks, Sander. I've tested this tag successfully with
Sander Striker wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some
>testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after
>I get some positive feedback on this tag.
>
>
>
Thanks, Sander. I've tested this tag successfully with
the leader/follower and prefork MPMs
43 matches
Mail list logo
