Michael Clark wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:05:35 +0800
Michael Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I'll report back on my experiments...
I look forward to it:-)
I have done some more investigation and have written up a proposal for
my intended approach to
Mladen Turk wrote:
Michael Clark wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:05:35 +0800
Michael Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, I'll report back on my experiments...
I look forward to it:-)
I have done some more investigation and have written up a proposal
for my
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
It would be a great New Year's gift to the community :)
Great
Paritosh Shah wrote:
Another possible approach would be to create a new
ap_meets_conditions_2() with resource_exists as an explicit argument (
instead of implicitly using r-notes ). Till the next major release we
could just make the current ap_meets_conditions() call
ap_meets_conditions_2()
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:26:14 +0100
Werner Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing
fre 2007-12-28 klockan 11:46 +0100 skrev Werner Baumann:
Paritosh Shah wrote:
Another possible approach would be to create a new
ap_meets_conditions_2() with resource_exists as an explicit argument (
instead of implicitly using r-notes ). Till the next major release we
could just make
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:24:07 +0100
Henrik Nordström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39727
discussed a number of times here already with varying results..
See this morning's commits. Werner's post reminded me of that one.
On Dec 27, 2007, at 5:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Ruediger,
Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for
2.0.x.
For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and later
do
The Apache Lounge Community tested a few days ago the 2.2.x code which
should become 2.2.7
We noticed that Bill Rowe backed out the change which broke mod_fcgid and
mod_fastcgi, so both mod_fcgid and mod_fastcgi work OK with the 2.2.x code.
Unfortunately, mod_perl is still broken in the
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 27, 2007, at 5:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Ruediger,
Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since
Nick Kew wrote (concerning bug 38034):
A quick look at the reports shows a lot of competing patches, and a
lot of inconclusive discussion. So it doesn't look like a simple
matter just to apply patches and close bug.
If you're telling us it is a simple matter, perhaps you could post
a summary
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:31:31 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -140,11 +143,15 @@
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=607245view=rev
Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
Trunk version of patch works
- +1: rpluem, niq
+ +1: rpluem, niq, wrowe
For information only; my post today based on new research into
Visual Studio 2008, and ActiveState Perl 5.10 binary release, over
these last few days.
Will focus the discussion on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list for
now since it's most intricately affected (permalink)
fre 2007-12-28 klockan 15:00 + skrev Nick Kew:
That bug shows why there's sometime a problem with such issues.
I committed a fix back in October, but you weren't satisfied with it,
I ahd initial objections because I thought you actually handled weak
ETags, but when remembering that you
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 01:16:21PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: fuankg
Date: Fri Dec 21 05:16:21 2007
New Revision: 606190
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=606190view=rev
Log:
Added server name indication (RFC 4366) support (PR 34607).
Commits containing changes authored
On 12/28/2007 08:52 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:31:31 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -140,11 +143,15 @@
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=607245view=rev
Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
Trunk version of patch works
- +1: rpluem,
Henrik Nordström wrote:
But I do not agree entirely on the conclusions on how mod_dav should
handle ETag. If you store ETag as a property it's better you generate a
real strong ETag without relying on the filesystem meta data, only using
the filesystem meta data as a safety check to guard from
lör 2007-12-29 klockan 09:20 +0800 skrev Michael Clark:
You would still suffer from the 1 second racing condition where you
wouldn't known if your stored ETag was up-to-date due to the mtime
resolution (for modifications made outside of WebDAV) forcing you back
into the current weak
Henrik Nordström wrote:
Modifications made using direct filesystem access, in the same second as
the last WebDAV update and only rewriting the file in-place without
changing the length.
That would be a reasonable limitation - hence the suggesion for a
DavETagIsolation dav-only (the default
19 matches
Mail list logo
