On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to propose a 1.3.32 release with a TR either late this
week or early next.
Sounds good.
Though I'd like to point to the 2.0 status file, where a bugfix (to 2.0
and 1.3) is waiting for
* Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to propose a 1.3.32 release with a TR either late this
week or early next.
Sounds good.
Though I'd like to point to the 2.0 status file,
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo wrote:
Actually I'm talking about the two proposals on the top. If you are
interested in backport voting, you need to touch the STATUS file anyway and
should follow the commits there.
However.
*) mod_rewrite: Fix 0 bytes write into random memory
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 - 1.3.
So it makes sense for me to look into 2.0 for possible 1.3 changes, but not
vice versa ;-)
André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 - 1.3.
So it makes sense for me to look into 2.0 for possible 1.3
There is a STATUS file in the 1.3 tree.
Geoffrey Young wrote:
André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 -
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 - 1.3.
So it makes sense for me to look into 2.0 for
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, people don't look for 1.3 patches in the 2.0 STATUS file
and vice-versa :)
As far as I can see, the current way to make changes is 2.1 - 2.0 - 1.3.
So it makes sense for me to look
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
Actually I'm talking about the two proposals on the top. If you are
interested in backport voting, you need to touch the STATUS file anyway and
should follow the commits there.
I'd still suggest posting them here. Until the lawyers here
* Rasmus Lerdorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
Actually I'm talking about the two proposals on the top. If you are
interested in backport voting, you need to touch the STATUS file anyway
and should follow the commits there.
I'd still
At 12:01 PM 9/8/2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:
Actually I'm talking about the two proposals on the top. If you are
interested in backport voting, you need to touch the STATUS file anyway and
should follow the commits there.
[...] And no, I
I'd like to propose a 1.3.32 release with a TR either late this
week or early next.
There's enough changes to warrant it I think. In the meantime,
if people could test HEAD, that would be great! Especially
those hit by the mod_dav/mod_frontpage problems that
surfaced with 1.3.31.
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to propose a 1.3.32 release with a TR either late this
week or early next.
Sounds good.
Though I'd like to point to the 2.0 status file, where a bugfix (to 2.0
and 1.3) is waiting for approval :)
nd
--
Solides und umfangreiches Buch
I'm reviewing this... I'm mostly investigating whether
the check for keepalive!=1 before calling ap_set_keepalive
in ap_send_http_header and ap_send_error_response is
too ap_die() specific. It seems to me that
ap_set_keepalive should be smarter internally about
double or more calls per request.
Ok, how about this.
Add a call to ap_set_keepalive(r) in ap_die() before the check to see
if we should be discarding the request body. Then, since ap_set_keepalive
increments the keepalives counter on the connection if keepalive is
determined to be enabled, add a check to the calls in
Yes, we do, and we're still waiting for a patch. However,
I can't see us delaying 1.3.32 for an unreasonable
amount of time.
On Jul 5, 2004, at 10:54 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
We still have that outstanding issue of conn-keepalive being bogus in
ap_die() because it hasn't been set yet and thus we
We still have that outstanding issue of conn-keepalive being bogus in
ap_die() because it hasn't been set yet and thus we can't discard the
request body in situations where we really need to. See my previous long
explanation of that problem.
-Rasmus
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
André Malo wrote:
* William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:14 PM 7/2/2004, you wrote:
I'm floating the idea of releasing 1.3.32 shortly...
Comments or thoughts?
Let me get the mutex protection into mod_rewrite after this holiday
weekend - win32 1.3 mod_rewrite users can finally be
* Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, if you're going to be that way then consider my simple Win32 patch to
fix reporting of proper error by spawnl(), which needs another +1 :)
(see thread [1.3 PATCH] restore failing errno for Win32 spawn errors on
this list)
+1 from me for that
Let's use STATUS :)
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9?= Malo wrote:
* Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, if you're going to be that way then consider my simple Win32 patch to
fix reporting of proper error by spawnl(), which needs another +1 :)
(see thread [1.3 PATCH] restore failing
I'm floating the idea of releasing 1.3.32 shortly...
Comments or thoughts?
At 01:14 PM 7/2/2004, you wrote:
I'm floating the idea of releasing 1.3.32 shortly...
Comments or thoughts?
Let me get the mutex protection into mod_rewrite after this holiday
weekend - win32 1.3 mod_rewrite users can finally be happy :)
Bill
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'm floating the idea of releasing 1.3.32 shortly...
Comments or thoughts?
I'll be happy to help re-review diffs with 1.3.31 and test release candidates
(or tags or HEAD or whatever) and so forth. No strong feelings either way though.
* William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:14 PM 7/2/2004, you wrote:
I'm floating the idea of releasing 1.3.32 shortly...
Comments or thoughts?
Let me get the mutex protection into mod_rewrite after this holiday
weekend - win32 1.3 mod_rewrite users can finally be happy :)
To
24 matches
Mail list logo
