We have a suggested patch in STATUS that addresses the 0- range
issue… Once approved, I plan to TR.
On Sep 26, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
All looks good… testing passes w/ no regressions so I'll
likely tag and roll tomorrow AM.
On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Jim Jagielski
All looks good… testing passes w/ no regressions so I'll
likely tag and roll tomorrow AM.
On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Been a little… preoccupied... Will push this week (and try to
finalize the patch to propose).
On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi
On 26.09.2011 17:35, Jim Jagielski wrote:
All looks good… testing passes w/ no regressions so I'll
likely tag and roll tomorrow AM.
Is there consensus how to handle the range 0- returns 200 problem? It
looks like the discussion for 2.2 is still open, but I haven't checked
whether that
On 9/26/2011 10:46 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 26.09.2011 17:35, Jim Jagielski wrote:
All looks good… testing passes w/ no regressions so I'll
likely tag and roll tomorrow AM.
Is there consensus how to handle the range 0- returns 200 problem? It
looks like the discussion for 2.2 is still
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Jung [mailto:rainer.j...@kippdata.de]
Sent: Montag, 26. September 2011 17:47
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: httpd 2.0.65 - when?
On 26.09.2011 17:35, Jim Jagielski wrote:
All looks good... testing passes w/ no regressions so I'll
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe Jr.
Sent: Montag, 26. September 2011 18:13
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: httpd 2.0.65 - when?
On 9/26/2011 10:46 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 26.09.2011 17:35, Jim Jagielski wrote:
All looks good... testing passes w
On Monday 26 September 2011, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
Agreed, if people decide our handling of range 0- is not
desirable, this would seem to be a showstopper on all three
branches. Personally, I find the current behavior acceptable by
the spec and per the underlying errata Roy has
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Fritsch [mailto:s...@sfritsch.de]
Sent: Montag, 26. September 2011 18:30
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: httpd 2.0.65 - when?
On Monday 26 September 2011, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
Agreed, if people decide our handling of range 0
On Sep 26, 2011, at 12:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Agreed, if people decide our handling of range 0- is not desirable, this
would seem to be a showstopper on all three branches. Personally, I find
the current behavior acceptable by the spec and per the underlying errata
Roy has
On Sep 26, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
I agree with you, but I am leaning towards to revert this behaviour, because
there
are too much stupid clients out there. So it looks like the smarter party
has to give in :-). Sigh.
Not when the stupid clients are also, from
On 9/26/2011 11:44 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 26, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
I agree with you, but I am leaning towards to revert this behaviour, because
there
are too much stupid clients out there. So it looks like the smarter party
has to give in :-). Sigh.
Been a little… preoccupied... Will push this week (and try to
finalize the patch to propose).
On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi all,
currently the 2.0.65 release seems a bit forgotten ...
2.0.x STATUS reads:
2.0.65 : In maintainance. Jim proposes TR 9/12-15 and
12 matches
Mail list logo
