Re: svn commit: r1103015 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS

2011-05-14 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:38 AM, wrote: > Author: wrowe > Date: Sat May 14 10:38:41 2011 > New Revision: 1103015 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1103015&view=rev > Log: > Some STATUS thoughts from the 2.4.0 barcamp session > > Modified: >    httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS > > Modified: httpd/

Re: svn commit: r1103015 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS

2011-05-14 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 5/14/2011 4:25 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> * Not all MPMs are updated to set conn_rec::current_thread correctly. >> (Prefork, Worker, Event, Simple are updated). >> jim sez: Then we just ship with those... mark any others as >> experimental, pgollucci +1 jim >> +

Re: svn commit: r1103015 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS

2011-05-14 Thread Graham Leggett
On 15 May 2011, at 1:46 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: No argument, but there are 1) minor quibbles with the apr-2 interface, and 2) some significant work to replace the original with the new interface, and not sure who has cycles to attack this in the near term. If it is fixed, re-adding

Re: svn commit: r1103015 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS

2011-05-15 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 5/15/2011 1:46 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 15 May 2011, at 1:46 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> No argument, but there are 1) minor quibbles with the apr-2 interface, and >> 2) some significant work to replace the original with the new interface, and >> not sure who has cycles to attack

Re: svn commit: r1103015 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS

2011-05-15 Thread Graham Leggett
On 15 May 2011, at 5:29 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: Ok, good... if we decouple mod_session_crypto (until apr-2/1.x api is released) and leave the rest, that would be just fine. Folks at the short idea session couldn't think, offhand, if it was strongly coupled to the whole mod_session f

Re: svn commit: r1103015 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/STATUS

2011-05-20 Thread Igor Galić
- Original Message - > On 15 May 2011, at 1:46 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > > > No argument, but there are 1) minor quibbles with the apr-2 > > interface, and > > 2) some significant work to replace the original with the new > > interface, and > > not sure who has cycles to attack thi