Thanks Yann, I'll work from my notes and a fresh checkout to revise ASAP.
On Aug 31, 2016 3:00 PM, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:47 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> >> On Aug 31, 2016 2:31 PM, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
> >>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:47 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 2016 2:31 PM, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:05 PM, William A Rowe Jr
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > One more reviewer would be appreciated to get the
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:47 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2016 2:31 PM, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:05 PM, William A Rowe Jr
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > One more reviewer would be appreciated to get these in sync, in
>> > preparation
>> > for the stronger parser on
On Aug 31, 2016 2:31 PM, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:05 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> >
> > One more reviewer would be appreciated to get these in sync, in
preparation
> > for the stronger parser on both of the release branches.
>
> My +1 on backport-2.2.x-r892678.patch, b
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 9:05 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> One more reviewer would be appreciated to get these in sync, in preparation
> for the stronger parser on both of the release branches.
My +1 on backport-2.2.x-r892678.patch, but I couldn't apply
backport-2.2.x-r951900-r1178566-r1185385
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:58 AM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> > + Backport:
>> > + https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wrowe/
>> patches/master/backport-2.2.x-r1710095-1727544.patch
>> > + +1: wrowe
>> > +
>>
>> backport link
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> > + Backport:
> > + https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wrowe/patches/master/
> backport-2.2.x-r1710095-1727544.patch
> > + +1: wrowe
> > +
>
> backport link is bad
>
Fixed, thanks!
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:57 PM, wrote:
> + *) core: Limit to ten the number of tolerated empty lines between request.
> + Before this commit, the maximum number of empty lines was the same as
> + configured LimitRequestFields, defaulting to 100, which was way too
> much.
> + We no
So these cumulative 4 patches, each of which focuses on a different aspect
of the request handling behavior, represent all of the fixes to 2.4.x that
never
made it to 2.2.x. With these proposals adopted, I can propose a nearly
identical backport of the revised request handling logic to both 2.4.x a
