On 2015-06-16 13:39, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 7:24 PM, olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote:
As a side note, even I've read the Release Notes I was thankful to see my
console was trashed with the deprecation warning ;)
What I miss is a section on httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/ with
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 7:24 PM, olli hauer oha...@gmx.de wrote:
As a side note, even I've read the Release Notes I was thankful to see my
console was trashed with the deprecation warning ;)
What I miss is a section on httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/ with a link list what
has changed since
Anyone else inclined to just remove the message? It's a deprecation that
didn't happen on a release boundary. AFAICT there's no reason to change how
you run your server unless you use two different cert chains and then you'd
find the info in the manual.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:57 AM Jim
Well, we have time now to Do This Right in 2.4.15, so
On Jun 14, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On 15/06/2015 07:56, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Gregg Smith g...@gknw.net wrote:
On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:12 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else inclined to just remove the message?
I'm +1 for that.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else inclined to just remove the message? It's a deprecation that
didn't happen on a release boundary. AFAICT there's no reason to change how
you run your server unless you use two different cert chains and then
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:54 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else inclined to just remove the message? It's a deprecation that
didn't happen on a release boundary. AFAICT there's no reason to
On 15 June 2015 14:12:27 UTC+01:00, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else inclined to just remove the message? It's a deprecation
that didn't happen on a release boundary. AFAICT there's no reason to change
how you run your server unless you use two different cert chains and then
you'd
On 2015-06-15 03:36, Gregg Smith wrote:
On 6/14/2015 6:14 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
On 6/14/2015 2:56 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Gregg Smithg...@gknw.net wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~gsmith/proposal/sslcertificatechainfile_compromise.diff
I'm fine with this
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:54 AM, William A Rowe Jr wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone else inclined to just remove the message? It's a deprecation
On 6/14/2015 2:54 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 11:29 AM,gsm...@apache.org wrote:
Author: gsmith
Date: Sun Jun 14 09:29:50 2015
New Revision: 1685371
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1685371
Log:
-1 vote w/ comment
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Modified:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 11:29 AM, gsm...@apache.org wrote:
Author: gsmith
Date: Sun Jun 14 09:29:50 2015
New Revision: 1685371
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1685371
Log:
-1 vote w/ comment
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
URL:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Gregg Smith g...@gknw.net wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~gsmith/proposal/sslcertificatechainfile_compromise.diff
I'm fine with this approach too.
We have to decide whether a single [warn] is acceptable or not since
it may still confuse startup monitors, which
On 6/14/2015 6:14 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
On 6/14/2015 2:56 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Gregg Smithg...@gknw.net wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~gsmith/proposal/sslcertificatechainfile_compromise.diff
I'm fine with this approach too.
We have to decide whether a
On 15/06/2015 07:56, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Gregg Smith g...@gknw.net wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~gsmith/proposal/sslcertificatechainfile_compromise.diff
[1]
I'm fine with this approach too.
We have to decide whether a single [warn] is acceptable
On 6/14/2015 2:56 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Gregg Smithg...@gknw.net wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~gsmith/proposal/sslcertificatechainfile_compromise.diff
I'm fine with this approach too.
We have to decide whether a single [warn] is acceptable or not since
it
16 matches
Mail list logo
