+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On 4/10/08, Michael B Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry this is a bit OT but I'm not sure what to do next and would
really appreciate some ideas.
One of my clients is seeing an FPE in ld-linux-x86-64.so when loading
a custom PHP extension. The backtrace is inlined below.
At least I
Paul Querna wrote:
For those who were not there, slides from Roy's keynote at ApacheCon EU:
http://roy.gbiv.com/talks/200804_Apache3_ApacheCon.pdf
I came away with one question...
if you read the slides you should understand Roy as pointing out the
relative peaks and valleys in traffic,
Guy Ferraiolo wrote:
Folks
Again, if there's anything I can do to help this along, please let me
know.
Pointer to the now-current patch after all of the recent discussion would
help - I'm happy to commit this today.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
here is my idea:
Ship 1.3.0 with httpd 2.2.x, but do *not* make httpd dependent on 1.3.x
now. Wait for this until 1.3.x has settled a bit more and things like
the ones Nick mentioned are fixed.
I'm not entirely keen on this idea; the reasons being
* we want to pick up
Confirming; this is the patch?
Bill
---BeginMessage---
No problem!
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 12:59 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guy Ferraiolo wrote:
Folks
I think flood is highly useful once the random substitution feature is
added. If we got that into the code base there might be
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: William A. Rowe, Jr.
Gesendet: Montag, 14. April 2008 12:49
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Ship 1.3.0 apr in httpd 2.2.9
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
here is my idea:
Ship 1.3.0 with httpd 2.2.x, but do *not* make httpd
dependent on
Plüm wrote:
It has not be the right way for long and the fixes that need to be
done are small. So I see no issue here having this done in 2.2.9 with
apr 1.2.x. We can align it with trunk 2.2.10 or later.
fair enough
* users looking at the mmn expect a certain baseline; explaining why
For those unaware, there are new flood and framework components
of the httpd-test bugzilla product.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
For those unaware, there are new flood and framework components
of the httpd-test bugzilla product.
Excellent :) I'm glad flood is regaining attention. It's a great tool
and I find it a pity that the project isn't that active anymore. The
site could use a little
for those with a flood checkout, from it's root you must
svn switch https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/flood/trunk
and for a perl framework checkout, it's
svn switch https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/framework/trunk
and for specweb99, it's
svn switch
Den Monday 14 April 2008 12.32.25 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
Confirming; this is the patch?
Bill
Does not build for me (r64) on Mandriva Linux 2008.1 (x86_64):
/bin/sh /usr/lib64/apr-1/build/libtool --silent --mode=compile
gcc-O2 -g -pipe -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
Oden Eriksson wrote:
Does not build for me (r64) on Mandriva Linux 2008.1 (x86_64):
snip
Do you happen to compile flood using GCC 4.x? I couldn't compile flood
with Guy's patch using GCC 4.1, particularly due to these two errors:
flood_round_robin.c:910: error: lvalue required as
On Apr 12, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and
discussed with a few other http server people before.
I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based
releases.
My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a
Den Monday 14 April 2008 15.15.22 skrev Vincent van Scherpenseel:
Oden Eriksson wrote:
Does not build for me (r64) on Mandriva Linux 2008.1 (x86_64):
snip
Do you happen to compile flood using GCC 4.x? I couldn't compile flood
with Guy's patch using GCC 4.1, particularly due to these
Vincent van Scherpenseel wrote:
Excellent :) I'm glad flood is regaining attention. It's a great tool
and I find it a pity that the project isn't that active anymore. The
site could use a little updating too: I get 404s for every
svn.apache.org/... link. Also, I believe there's no link back
On Apr 13, 2008, at 3:32 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a release of the main
stable
branch, which at this time is 2.2.x.
I would like to go for 3 month, so four times per
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Plus, every 3 months would coincide with the report-to-board cycle,
making it easier for everyone to follow :) Next is due in May, so
if we release this month, then we can follow a Release before
the board report or else Release at board report cycle (with
the caveat I noted
On Apr 14, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Plus, every 3 months would coincide with the report-to-board cycle,
making it easier for everyone to follow :) Next is due in May, so
if we release this month, then we can follow a Release before
the board report or else
On Apr 14, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Apr 14, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Jess Holle wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Plus, every 3 months would coincide with the report-to-board cycle,
making it easier for everyone to follow :) Next is due in May, so
if we release this month, then we can
OK, I'll get a new checkout and build a patch that won't complain.
Thanks!
Guy
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 15:21 +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote:
Den Monday 14 April 2008 15.15.22 skrev Vincent van Scherpenseel:
Oden Eriksson wrote:
Does not build for me (r64) on Mandriva Linux 2008.1 (x86_64):
On 4/12/2008 at 11:20 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul
Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and discussed
with a few other http server people before.
I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based releases.
My
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Brad Nicholes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 14. April 2008 17:44
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases
On 4/12/2008 at 11:20 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul
Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me
if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance
of a schedule than not, and by baselining every X months for a release,
it provides us, as volunteers, to better allocate time. It does
not mean, imo, that we rush out
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:46:43PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me
if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance
of a schedule than not, and by baselining every X months for a release,
it provides us, as volunteers,
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:27:40AM -0700, Chris Elving wrote:
Basant Kukreja wrote:
+static void sed_write(sed_eval_t *eval, char *buf, int sz)
+{
+if (eval-curoutbuf + sz = eval-outbend) {
+// flush current buffer
+sed_flush_output_buffer(eval, buf, sz);
+}
+
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I'm not real excited about adding a new authz directive. Authn and
authz are already very complex and adding a new directive to the mix will
just help to confuse people even more.
That's a good point. Mostly the idea of an Accept replacement for
Require came up as a
On 4/14/2008 at 12:21 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I'm not real excited about adding a new authz directive. Authn and
authz are already very complex and adding a new directive to the mix will
just help to confuse people even
Thanks!
Guy
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 14:27 +0200, Vincent van Scherpenseel wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
For those unaware, there are new flood and framework components
of the httpd-test bugzilla product.
Excellent :) I'm glad flood is regaining attention. It's a great tool
and I
Brad Nicholes wrote:
This is where it starts to go wrong for me. Where it gets confusing
for somebody who is trying to figure out what the configuration
is doing is:
Directory /www/pages
SatisfyAll
Require ip 10.10.0.1
Require ldap-group sales
SatisfyOne
30 matches
Mail list logo
