On Aug 4, 2007, at 1:20 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Aug 3, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Lets shoot for a TR of 1.3, 2.0 and 2.2 on Aug 10th... That
means a possible release on the 13th. That way, admins
aren't compelled to upgrade before/during the weekend (other-
wise, TR
On Aug 4, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/03/2007 06:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Lets shoot for a TR of 1.3, 2.0 and 2.2 on Aug 10th... That
means a possible release on the 13th. That way, admins
aren't compelled to upgrade before/during the weekend (other-
wise, TR on the 8th
* mod_proxy_ajp: Add support of ProxyIOBufferSize.
Trunk version of patch:
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
*r)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
On Aug 6, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 8/6/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ummm... These didn't have 3 +1 votes.
So why were they applied and committed??
I think for platform-specific code we've been okay with a smaller
consensus than 3.
true enough
to reflect the state change, and I
have an idea about that.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
On Aug 7, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Aug 4, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I would renew my offer to RM but realistically I'll be traveling
on the 10th so it's not unlikely that I'd drop the ball yet again.
No worries... I'll stay RM and, if things free up for you
I know I've said this before, but having copies of
Changes in Apache 2.2.5 under the -trunk CHANGES file,
as well as the 2.0.x stuff in both trunk and 2.2
means that we are pretty much assured that they will
get out of sync.
I'd like to re-propose that the CHANGES files only
refer to changes
On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Wed Aug 8 05:41:21 2007
New Revision: 563839
[..]
Changes with Apache 2.2.5
+
+ *) mod_deflate: fix protocol handling in deflate input filter
+ PR 23287 [Nick Kew]
+
+ *) mod_proxy: fix buffer
On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Wed Aug 8 05:41:21 2007
New Revision: 563839
[..]
Changes with Apache 2.2.5
+
+ *) mod_deflate: fix protocol handling
A reminder that tomorrow I'll be tagging and rolling
Apache HTTP 1.3.38, 2.0.60 and 2.2.5 for a potential
release on the 14th...
also submitted a little patch (41887) some =
months ago that is of a great deal of use to myself (maybe only myself, =
but still).
Cheers,
Jan=20
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 2-8-2007 22:30
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: 1.3
On Aug 9, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
A reminder that tomorrow I'll be tagging and rolling
Apache HTTP 1.3.38, 2.0.60 and 2.2.5 for a potential
release on the 14th...
As of this time (noon, eastern) both 1.3.38 and 2.0.60
are tagged. Will tag 2.2.5 later on this afternoon
Thanks for the bug report and patch(es). We'll review
them after this release...
On Aug 10, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Jose Kahan wrote:
Hi folks,
Just a short messsage to tell you that I just uploaded
the patch against svn trunk that fixes this bug. Yes,
the patch is still needed as the bug is
OK, this will for sure not be in 2.0.60 or 2.2.5, but
I will add as a backport for 2.0.61 and 2.2.6...
On Aug 9, 2007, at 6:34 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Let me look at it in the morning... I'm not planning a TR until
later on in the afternoon, and I'm east coast anyway :)
Jan van den Berg
On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 9, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
A reminder that tomorrow I'll be tagging and rolling
Apache HTTP 1.3.38, 2.0.60 and 2.2.5 for a potential
release on the 14th...
As of this time (noon, eastern) both 1.3.38 and 2.0.60
-2.2.5
Thanks!!
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://
www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
[ ]apache_1.3.28
Obviously, that should have been
[ ] apache_1.3.38
:)
On Aug 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
-1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions
compared to 2.0.59:
What platform? Trying to recreate this...
These regression are caused by an apr problem. 2.0.59 is shipped
with apr 0.9.12 whereas
2.0.60 is
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/12/2007 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Also, would this require a new tag for 2.0.60? It's not
an Apache problem, rather with how the 2.0.60 tarball was
done, but whenever problems have existed in the tarballs
before, we have retagged and rerolled, which I
Just a FYI: I'm planning on doing a TR of 2.0.61 tomorrow (Aug 13);
It's a retag of 2.0.60 (plus the version bump, 'natch), and a reroll
with the singular exception of bundling APR 0.9.12, instead of 0.9.14.
--
===
Jim
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:08 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just a FYI: I'm planning on doing a TR of 2.0.61 tomorrow (Aug 13);
It's a retag of 2.0.60 (plus the version bump, 'natch), and a reroll
with the singular exception of bundling APR 0.9.12, instead of
0.9.14
The tarballs and related files for 2.0.60 have been
removed from testing...
Depending on the speed in which APR 0.9.15, we may
go ahead with a fully combined 1.3/2.0/2.2 release
(as originally planned) or release 1.3/2.2 earlier
than 2.0...
-0400
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depending on the speed in which APR 0.9.15, we may
go ahead with a fully combined 1.3/2.0/2.2 release
(as originally planned)
Rushed schedules lead to more bugs ...
or release 1.3/2.2 earlier
than 2.0...
Maybe put out the announcements
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
Good PGP signatures on all. Good MD5 hashes on all, although you
seem to have
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:37 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Also, all the way through 1.3.37 the 1.3 drop has been available in
.tar.gz and .tar.Z compressed format, never in .tar.bz2.
By design and on purpose, I dropped .Z in favor of bz2...
I wanted similar distros
Sorry for the cross post but this involves both
projects: If we (APR) decide that a 0.9.15 this
week makes sense, then I'm willing to hold off releasing
all 3 versions of httpd until then... If 0.9.15
will instead be pushed out until whenever, then
1.3 and 2.2 will go out this week no matter
the latest APR fixes... Wed/Thurs is fine
with me :)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It is mostly the same people, regardless. Bill could tag 0.9.15
and start a release vote on APR while Jim rebuilds 2.0.x based
;
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On 8/17/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this change really require a CHANGES entry??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: covener
Date: Fri Aug 17 10:33:11 2007
New Revision: 567091
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev
On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 8/17/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 17, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On 8/17/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this change really require a CHANGES entry??
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author
On Aug 18, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
Steffen,
I really don't see anything threatening by what Bill said. On the
contrary, he very openly said that there's nothing illegal about
releasing an RC; the way I read it, the potential problems are coming
from endusers who might use a
On Aug 19, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 09:46:50PM -0400, Tom Donovan wrote:
Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us
that the
Apache2 license protects released versions of Apache differently.
It doesn't.
My (possibly faulty)
There are 2 issues:
o Making the test tarball of 2.2.5 available from a site
outside of the ASF (potentially with no indication that
it is not an official release).
o The feather issue.
The latter can, and should, certainly be handled by the
ASF Public Relations Cmmt ([EMAIL
On Aug 19, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Steffen wrote:
Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that ASF
and/or
Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge. And
like Tom
said before: sounds a bit more territorial than legal to me.
Maybe Covalent Technologies is also
it??
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
and developer community).
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
they are using an official Apache release when they
are not).
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 18:24
Subject: Re: Goodbye
Steffen wrote:
The admonishment
that the ASF
has issues with how the Apache logo or name are used.
Hate to tell you this, but we've done this to many
many others, like IBM, JBoss and yes Covalent.
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
; Not that this will remove the problem at
all, but at least it avoids the irritating claim that somehow
by placing under dev/dist we are releasing the s/w.
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 12:16:03PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Like I said, as long as ApacheLounge makes clear that the versions it
carries are not ASF releases, it's certainly permitted by the license
and not the least bit out
Status Update:
There are issues in the current shipping version of
APR 0.9 that must be resolved before we can reroll 2.0.x.
Furthermore, there are issues in APR 1.2 that should be
fixed (although not regression related) before we redo
2.2.x... Once APR is tagged and rolled, we will use
that to
On Aug 20, 2007, at 4:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Status Update:
There are issues in the current shipping version of
APR 0.9 that must be resolved before we can reroll 2.0.x.
Furthermore, there are issues in APR 1.2 that should be
fixed (although not regression
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Of course, releases can't be vetoed, but doing further research
indicates that Bill looks to be spot on with this issue...
The point is, this was released. Iteratively. I'm just not in a mood
to keep +1'ing releases while the code
On Aug 20, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Short: We need to call ap_close_listeners() earlier or more
aggressively.
Question: Where/How?
Looking at the Event MPM in both trunk and 2.2.x, the
listener_thread is
where we call ap_close_listeners(). This does not seem to be working
No guarantees, but the expectation is Yes, 2.2.6 will be
released way before then. We're justing waiting for some
APR cleanups before I tag/roll 2.2.6
On Aug 21, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Oden Eriksson wrote:
Hello.
I just wonder if someone could tell me if and official 2.2.5/2.2.6
will be
On Aug 23, 2007, at 1:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ap_available_mutexes_string and ap_add_available_mutexes_string
cannot be data symbols when mod_ssl is built as a loadable module;
using an external string constant in a loadable module is not
portable.
Wow... that's v. interesting...
Sorry for the delay, but we are still held up with the APR
release and some piped logging regressions... Hopefully
once APR is released, it will be stable enough to allow
us to do some quicker turn-arounds for TRs...
On Aug 23, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Francisco Gimeno wrote:
Hello,
I have made a tiny patch for Apache 2.2 mod_proxy. It consists on
enabling a new option to status parameter in ProxyPass directive.
My idea is that I don't want to disable a destination server
whenever a single failure occur
On Aug 23, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/23/2007 09:29 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/23/2007 02:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Wed Aug 22 17:10:35 2007
New Revision: 568779
URL:
On Aug 23, 2007, at 4:05 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
But I admit that this is harder to audit and is more likely to
change at some
point of time to the usage of a pool.
More to the point, implementation of apr_ctime. The alternative of
no error
at all or no
On Aug 23, 2007, at 8:56 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
Hi.
This one is frustrating me to no end, and was wondering if some BSD/
OSX guru can help me out a bit.
I'm using the trunk, and trying to start apache, but I keep getting
a lock/sem problem
[Fri Aug 24 10:51:53 2007] [emerg] (28)No
On Aug 24, 2007, at 4:03 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/24/2007 05:30 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Aug 23, 2007, at 7:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
On 8/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I can't see holding off the 1.3 release any longer
while we're waiting on APR as well as stuff is being added
to the 2.x trees... It's kind of embarrassing.
So even though I have most of the files setup for triple
release, I think next week I'll just release 1.3 and we
can the
On Aug 24, 2007, at 7:47 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/24/2007 02:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
To be honest, I can't see holding off the 1.3 release any longer
while we're waiting on APR as well as stuff is being added
to the 2.x trees... It's kind of embarrassing.
+1
Just to let people know: The list Steffen is referring to
is moderated. As of this morning, I still have not seen
the email he is referring to come in, nor have I
seen it up for moderation.
The reason there is no answer is because no one has
seen the Email.
I've requested to Steffen that he
Since it's expected that there will be quite a delay
in the next release of 1.3, assuming no security patches,
I'm seriously considering not releasing 1.3.38 in favor
of 1.3.39, which includes a minor patch to be sure, but
at least it would be a release that could hold for awhile...
It would
done and done
On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:08 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Since this changes the user experience, would you mind terribly
applying the CHANGES as well? (I format my STATUS entries for
CHANGES now, since a diff of CHANGES never applies clean ;-)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
Since a few regressions and other issues popped up the
last go around, I cancelled release of 1.3.38, 2.0.60 and
2.2.5... I think we are close, *very* close to being at
the point to try this all again.
1.3.39 looks stable enough that a TR has no open issues
at all. So it's a no-brainer.
2.0.61
Yes, the CHANGES file will be updated to reflect any
and all security issues for that release...
On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 08:31:21AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Since a few regressions and other issues popped up the
last go around, I cancelled
Well... I'm east coast :)
On Aug 30, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Cameron J. Young ((Personal)) wrote:
Jim,
Is that EST or PST ??
Cheers,
Cameron
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 23:02
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Guess what
Sorry for the delay (with my PRC hat on). You should see
a reply as we speak :)
On Aug 30, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Mail prc-at-apache.org but not reply yet but I'm in the process of
renaming all the stuff,
If they don't agree with the new name I'll do it again.
Yeah, all this is being fixed in the mod_jk code as
well...
On Aug 30, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Martin Kraemer wrote:
Hi.
While looking at ajp_header.c, I realized that its method of parsing
the header line tokens is flakey: it uses memcmp() to check, e.g.,
whether the header token is
On Aug 30, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
On 8/30/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the delay (with my PRC hat on). You should see
a reply as we speak :)
No worries, but while I have attention let me hold on to it for a
bit longer ;)
Regarding the disclaimer
;
}
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
) {
/* add corresponding filter */
ap_set_content_type(r, apr_pstrdup(r-pool, value));
ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_DEBUG, 0, r-server,
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http
On Aug 30, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Ummm 2 things:
First of all, this is not even patched in trunk yet.
Secondly, this completely bypasses the normal backporting
process that everyone is required to use.
Please revert these patches, patch trunk and submit these
patches
On Aug 30, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Martin Kraemer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:36:18AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are these really candidates for bypassing the
normal backport process from trunk??
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/modules/proxy/ajp_header.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches
On Aug 30, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Martin Kraemer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 11:36:18AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Are these really candidates for bypassing the
normal backport process from trunk??
I committed the other change (memcmp-strcmp) righty now on trunk.
And yes, I am aware that I
On Aug 31, 2007, at 5:11 AM, Martin Kraemer wrote:
Please go for obvious algorithms, or simply automate them (as in
the example macro above) rather than coding in assembler code for
efficiency, dropping even the slightest trace of explanation what
the code is intended to do, and leaving
On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
My intent is to TR all 3 tomorrow (Friday, the 31st) with
a potential announcement Wednesday, Sept 5th. This is
because Monday is a holiday in the states, so that means
mostly a 3 day weekend for most people...
Due to some last minute
On Aug 31, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Freitag, 31. August 2007 16:02
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers
Hi,
In
As people can see, I've been trying to better organize
CHANGES, reducing the amount of unnecessary syncing between
versions. As such, right now each CHANGES file is a self-contained
entity, relating to changes just within that codebase
version (almost, since the 1.3 CHANGES refer to pre-1.3
stuff
:)
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
On Sep 3, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV wrote:
Persistent backend connection when proxying using RewriteRule is
exactly what I am trying to do.
AFAIU there is no way to achieve persistent connections with the
default worker because (correct me if I am wrong) a worker is
List change:
On Sep 3, 2007, at 8:51 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Bill, are you planning to retag 0.9 with this fix? I know
I need to hold off on httpd 2.2 until the new 1.2 tag, but
if you are planning to also retag 0.9, I'd prefer to
wait until you do so for httpd
We'll pick up all the latest tags... :)
On Sep 3, 2007, at 8:55 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Do we want to pick up the new apr-util's which now include Roy's
commits to pick up db 4.6 and other fun test/ fixes? (including
running a bunch of tests which were previously 'interactively'
On Sep 4, 2007, at 8:27 AM, Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV wrote:
-Message d'origine-
De : Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV
Envoyé : mardi 4 septembre 2007 14:19
À : dev@httpd.apache.org
Objet : [PATCH] Apache 2.2.x: Implicit creation of new proxy_workers
I will create a Bugzilla report for this
On Sep 4, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
With the tagging (but not yet release) of the latest
rev's of apr/apu, I plan on tagging all 3 flavors of httpd
today (1.3.39, 2.0.61 and 2.2.6).
1.3.39 is tagged and rolled, but not yet available for
test. TR for 2.x will be a bit later
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Sept 7, unless otherwise noted...
+/-1 (x == +1)
[ ]apache_1.3.39
[
Erik Abele wrote:
On 04.09.2007, at 23:29, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
On Sep 4, 2007, at 8:15 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Hmmm... yeah, bummer. If that's it though, I'm +1 on keeping
as is... we can document this. Or, we could *gasp* just reroll :/
Or we can repack the same files. This is a packaging artifact, not
an artifact
Hmmm... maybe:
worker_is_initialized = (workers-s PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
(workers));
instead of
worker_is_initialized = workers-s ?
PROXY_WORKER_IS_INITIALIZED
(workers) : 0;
??
On Sep 5, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 14:03
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: mod_proxy_balancer
Hmmm... maybe:
worker_is_initialized = (workers-s
Anyone have issues if I apply the below to trunk?
Index: include/scoreboard.h
===
--- include/scoreboard.h(revision 572962)
+++ include/scoreboard.h(working copy)
@@ -40,6 +40,9 @@
#include apr_shm.h
#include
Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 04 September, 2007 23:29
Subject: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release candidate
tarballs for review
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server
As a rough guess, I'm assuming it may have something to
do with the stderr/stdout stuff...
Anyone testing with mod_cgid?
On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Any indication on *how* it is broken?
On Sep 5, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Steffen wrote:
Sorry, it is on Win32
With 2.2.6
Sep 05 20:50:24 2007] [error] [client 87.66.74.14] Premature
end of script headers: test.cgi
scripts works fine when ran from console.
I know its not a config error because I know they used to work fine.
On 9/5/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a rough guess,
I'm assuming it may
On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through Sept 6, 2007 and close
Sept 7, unless otherwise noted
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Steffen wrote:
k
I the meantime we have to advise the users not to use 2.2.6
because is not compatible with some mods (not just mod_fcgid). We
shall advise to stay on 2.2.4 or 2.2.5 RC.
What other mods is it not compatible with? So far, I haven't
heard
is not working for me, either with Perl or with my own FCGI
test program.
Steffen
- Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 06 September, 2007 15:48
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache 2.2.6, 2.0.61 and 1.3.39 release
On Sep 6, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
So far, I see nothing yet preventing us from releasing
this tomorrow... assuming that stays the same, I will
move the files over to the main dist location to allow
mirrors to start snagging and allow us a real release
and announcement tomorrow
was woefully
lacking.
On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Steffen wrote:
Better we stop this thread.
See the post at: http://www.apachelounge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
p=8691 , please do not reply to that post.
Steffen
- Original Message - From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev
On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:33 PM, The Doctor wrote:
Any chance I can test for bugs on BSD/OS ?
The last time it was major.
Well, we are pushing out to mirrors, but that shouldn't
stop people from testing... If something shows up
we have options, the best option being determined by
the kind of
Grrr... I tested with a compile and it worked fine, but
I forgot to do a make distclean 1st.
Yep.
Problem is that we're leaking info in mod_proxy.h
that we shouldn't :/
I'll revert until we figure out a better way to do
this...
On Sep 7, 2007, at 4:30 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
That is
The site is updated and mirrors are on the final stages of
syncing up.
The announcement will be going out in a coupla hours.
Thanks to all!
On Sep 7, 2007, at 6:29 AM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
I think I have patched it. Could you try it?
Ahh... this is much nicer that my idea of breaking out
the data struct defs from the rest of mod_proxy.h
And its more logical this way as well...
Compiles clean... testing now.
Too burned
On Sep 7, 2007, at 5:37 AM, Martin Kraemer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 10:30:13AM +0200, jean-frederic clere wrote:
That is going to break:
In mod_proxy.h:
int ap_proxy_lb_workers(void);
In server/scoreboard.c:
+++
static APR_OPTIONAL_FN_TYPE(ap_proxy_lb_workers)
Of course, the *real* fix is to make the scoreboard and
its entire allocation something which is more callable/usable
by modules, which is something we talked about several
times and is like a major aspect of 3.0.
But the current discussion tries to somehow say
that lb_score shouldn't know that
301 - 400 of 4498 matches
Mail list logo
