> Am 07.10.2018 um 03:16 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri :
>
> Actually, I'm glad you asked. I committed after 2.4.35 to T 2.4.36 soon
> after. I'm happy to do that ASAP if there are no objections.
>
> What say you, fellow devs? How about next week?
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>
> On October 6, 2018
Since this tag is only days away, the committers would really appreciate
any feedback from early adopters. I'm not certain on the status of the auth
hook fix, but believe it's certainly ready to have the tires kicked, so we
can avoid any quirks resulting from the TLS 1.3 efforts.
Please feel free
On 07 Oct 2018, at 03:16, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> Actually, I'm glad you asked. I committed after 2.4.35 to T 2.4.36 soon
> after. I'm happy to do that ASAP if there are no objections.
>
> What say you, fellow devs? How about next week?
+1 and thank you. Would be good to see TLS 1.3 out the
Actually, I'm glad you asked. I committed after 2.4.35 to T 2.4.36 soon
after. I'm happy to do that ASAP if there are no objections.
What say you, fellow devs? How about next week?
--
Daniel Ruggeri
On October 6, 2018 7:53:58 PM CDT, Michael-Fever wrote:
>
>Aww, all I care about is getting
Aww, all I care about is getting 2.4.36 going so I can say I have TLS 1.3
supported with my h2. LOL, no but seriously, is 2.4.36 stable enough to be
using?
--
Sent from:
http://apache-http-server.18135.x6.nabble.com/Apache-HTTP-Server-Dev-f4771363.html
On 08/06/2018 07:37 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
It appears 2.4.34 is unusable [...]
BTW: How usable is it compared to trunk?
Regards,
Micha
... poking for a 2.6 release.
On 07/08/2018 03:37, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> It appears 2.4.35 is unusable, as other distributors also paused to start
> hauling in regression fixes as they
eh? unusable? I have rooms full of them with no errors or problems
--
Kind Regards,
Noel Butler
This Email,
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 1:37 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> Is anyone else disappointed in the number of regressions in 2.4.35?
>
Could you point them out?
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:37 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> Is anyone else disappointed in the number of regressions in 2.4.35?
>
> Is anyone else interested in releasing 2.4.36 promptly with no new
> features or enhancements which may cause 2.4.36 to be similarly unusable?
> Which backports or