On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 10:05 AM 9/19/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >+1 for .42
>
> Agreed here, no signs of trouble.
>
> >And to make it official, .41 should be classified as an alpha release.
>
> All tarballs rolled are Alpha until otherwise released as Beta
At 10:05 AM 9/19/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>+1 for .42
Agreed here, no signs of trouble.
>And to make it official, .41 should be classified as an alpha release.
All tarballs rolled are Alpha until otherwise released as Beta candidates,
which remain Beta candidates until they are released a
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 07:47:14PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Okay... I've checked in the change. I'd suggest tossing 2.0.41 and roll this
> > fix into a 2.0.42. (I'm not suggesting using HEAD for 2.0.42)
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > $ cvs ta
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 07:47:14PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> Okay... I've checked in the change. I'd suggest tossing 2.0.41 and roll this
> fix into a 2.0.42. (I'm not suggesting using HEAD for 2.0.42)
>
> Something like:
>
> $ cvs tag -r APACHE_2_0_41 APACHE_2_0_42 # copy the tag
> $ cvs tag
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 07:31:27PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> Oh... wait a sec. I was getting too complicated. Simply sending an OPTIONS
> request *with a body* to a location using mod_dav_fs as its provider will
> blow up at that point. Well, mod_dav_FOO that doesn't provide versioning
> sup
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 07:37:55PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> First, a stack trace:
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> [Switching to Thread 1024 (LWP 18642)]
> 0x403cf42f in dav_method_options (r=0x8123470) at mod_dav.c:1762
> 1762if ((err = (*v
More details. YAY
First, a stack trace:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 1024 (LWP 18642)]
0x403cf42f in dav_method_options (r=0x8123470) at mod_dav.c:1762
1762if ((err = (*vsn_hooks->get_option)(resource, elem,
&body))
(gdb) where
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 06:49:48PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't know if this is in .41 because I haven't had time to test it
> yet. But, HEAD of mod_dav has an annoying seg fault. Basically, if you
> send an OPTIONS request for a location that isn't configured for DAV, the
> modu
I don't know if this is in .41 because I haven't had time to test it
yet. But, HEAD of mod_dav has an annoying seg fault. Basically, if you
send an OPTIONS request for a location that isn't configured for DAV, the
module seg faults. I have traced it far enough to know where it is
happening, bu
