The first regression report, though slightly too late for the vote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639825
The byterange_filter.c in the Debian update is exactly the one from
2.2.20. I will keep you updated.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> The first regression report, though slightly too late for the vote:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639825
>
> The byterange_filter.c in the Debian update is exactly the one from
> 2.2.20. I will keep you upda
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 31. August 2011 11:13
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Regression with range fix
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > The firs
On Aug 31, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 31. August 2011 11:13
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Regression with range fix
>&
On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:51:55PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > The first regression report, though slightly too late for the
> > vote:
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=639825
> >
> > The byterange_filter.c in the Debian
On 8/31/2011 4:00 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Joe Orton wrote:
>>
>> Anything else to watch out for?
>
> c) a request with a byterange beyond the end of the file used to
> return 416 but now returns 200. This is a violation of a RFC2616
> SHOULD. We didn't catch this
On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> Looking at the patch in 2.2.x; there is a lot of effort expended
> >> deadling with apr_bucket_split() returning ENOTIMPL - that looks
> >> unnecessary; the filter will only handle brigades containing
> >> buckets with known length, and all suc
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Fritsch [mailto:s...@sfritsch.de]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 31. August 2011 23:09
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: non-splittable buckets (was: Regression with range fix)
>
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> &
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:08:51PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 August 2011, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > >> Looking at the patch in 2.2.x; there is a lot of effort expended
> > >> deadling with apr_bucket_split() returning ENOTIMPL - that looks
> > >> unnecessary; the filter will onl
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jor...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 1. September 2011 14:39
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Re: non-splittable buckets (was: Regression with range fix)
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:08:51PM +0200, Stefan
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 02:47:19PM +0200, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
> > > If we rip it out, we should replace it with ap_assert()s. And maybe
> > > only do it in 2.3?
> >
> > It would seem odd to have ENOTIMPL as a "fatal" error but other
> > "real" errors non-fatal. *No* error should oc
On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 02:47:19PM +0200, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
If we rip it out, we should replace it with ap_assert()s. And maybe
only do it in 2.3?
>>>
>>> It would seem odd to have ENOTIMPL as a "fatal" error but other
>>>
12 matches
Mail list logo
