Thanks for the understanding.
Experience is that win issues hardly land in the status. Mostly the answer is
make a bug report, and it is of the table and sitting as reported bug for a
very long time. Take for example the serious bug from Mario about the balancer
in 2.3. An other are the
On 16 Jan 2012, at 2:31 PM, Steffen wrote:
Thanks for the understanding.
Experience is that win issues hardly land in the status. Mostly the answer is
make a bug report, and it is of the table and sitting as reported bug for a
very long time. Take for example the serious bug from Mario
Also I cannot believe that eg the rewrite p issue was/is(?) only win.
It wasn't windows-only.
Unbelievable this answer, I am stimulating users to use it and with success. I
feel, you are accusing me here and the windows community. No problem, we are
continuing to let you know what issues we discover. In principal up to you how
you handle issues Keep in mind we are just users, no dev's.
On Thursday 12 January 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On monday (Jan 16th), I plan to TR 2.4.0...
+1
On Jan 12, 2012, at 2:24 AM, Steffen wrote:
We have at least 4 hard bugs in 2.3.16. Known for a long time, and no need
to exposure more for these.
Are they listed in STATUS under the Release Showstoppers section? That
currently only lists the need to remove undocumented modules as
Yep. I supplied logs when asked. And Stefan was asked to provide a trace log,
not me.
Op 12 jan. 2012 om 18:11 heeft Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de het
volgende geschreven:
On 12.01.2012 11:24, Steffen wrote:
We have at least 4 hard bugs in 2.3.16. Known for a long time, and no need
It is the SSL issue when AcceptFilter https none (not httpd what Gregg says).
More info, see the thread: Win 2.3.16 :: SSL and AcceptFilter
Better to discuss there and not clutter this thread.
Steffen
Op 13 jan. 2012 om 01:29 heeft Daniel Ruggeri drugg...@primary.net het
volgende
Better to discuss there and not clutter this thread.
Even better to open a bug report.
On 13.01.2012 10:18, Steffen wrote:
Yep. I supplied logs when asked. And Stefan was asked to provide a trace log,
not me.
I know you provided some, but it was only LogLevel info and without any
timestamps. What would be very helpful in addition would be the full
trace8 log files of a good
We have at least 4 hard bugs in 2.3.16. Known for a long time, and no need to
exposure more for these.
Fine a GA, with a big note that it is not ready for Windows and advising to run
2.2.21 as proven stable.
So not happy with 2.4.
Op 11 jan. 2012 om 16:37 heeft Jim Jagielski
On monday (Jan 16th), I plan to TR 2.4.0...
On 12.01.2012 11:24, Steffen wrote:
We have at least 4 hard bugs in 2.3.16. Known for a long time, and no need to
exposure more for these.
Fine a GA, with a big note that it is not ready for Windows and advising to run
2.2.21 as proven stable.
So not happy with 2.4.
Understood, but we
On 12 Jan 2012, at 18:10, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On monday (Jan 16th), I plan to TR 2.4.0...
+1.
Let's do this.
Regards,
Graham
--
+1 non binding.
Please note in the announcement that for Windows there are still issues
pending, special not working SSL, hanging workers, balancer and Rewrite Proxy.
For production use, is 2.2.21 advised.
Op 12 jan. 2012 om 18:10 heeft Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com het volgende
geschreven:
On 12.01.2012 19:10, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On monday (Jan 16th), I plan to TR 2.4.0...
+1
On 1/12/2012 10:11 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 12.01.2012 11:24, Steffen wrote:
We have at least 4 hard bugs in 2.3.16. Known for a long time, and
no need to exposure more for these.
Fine a GA, with a big note that it is not ready for Windows and
advising to run 2.2.21 as proven stable.
So
On 1/11/2012 5:52 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
On 1/11/2012 6:26 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Also, in relation to the windows stuff, I think Jim's suggestion is
most appropriate in the absence of more windows users to test.
If all we need is testing and some logging, I'd be happy to assist. If
someone
On 1/12/2012 5:50 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
Either apachehaus.com or apachelounge.com have 2.3.16 binaries
available for Windows.
The problem is with the directive;
AcceptFilter httpd none
That is the only non-stardard config option.
Greg;
Thanks for the overview - if I understand
On 1/12/2012 5:29 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
On 1/12/2012 5:50 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
Either apachehaus.com or apachelounge.com have 2.3.16 binaries
available for Windows.
The problem is with the directive;
AcceptFilter httpd none
That is the only non-stardard config option.
Greg;
Things look stable.
Things look good.
Things look happy.
So are we ready to finally make this happen??
I offer to RM.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Things look stable.
Things look good.
Things look happy.
So are we ready to finally make this happen??
I offer to RM.
Only outstanding issue from last series of thread I am aware of is
windows ssl socket reuse thing
On 11 Jan 2012, at 7:38 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Things look stable.
Things look good.
Things look happy.
So are we ready to finally make this happen??
I offer to RM.
+1.
Only outstanding issue from last series
On 1/11/2012 10:37 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Things look stable.
Things look good.
Things look happy.
So are we ready to finally make this happen??
I offer to RM.
I'm voting -1 on GA until we see something that we agree is GA :)
Totally +1 on making 2.4.0 happen, whether it is alpha,
On Jan 11, 2012, at 2:48 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/11/2012 10:37 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Things look stable.
Things look good.
Things look happy.
So are we ready to finally make this happen??
I offer to RM.
I'm voting -1 on GA until we see something that we agree is GA
On Jan 11, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Things look stable.
Things look good.
Things look happy.
So are we ready to finally make this happen??
I offer to RM.
Only outstanding issue from last series
On 1/11/2012 2:17 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
What currently is not GA-worthy?
We vote on releases, not subversion. That was my point.
It is not yet the best available version, I believe 2.2.21 is. There
is far too much unexercised code in 2.4.0, new regressions and so forth,
that will only be
On 1/11/2012 5:51 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 14:41 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
cycles have taught us users aren't adopting our 2.odd releases. Sigh.
This is likely a carry over from the old days of the kernel, no-one dares run
a major.odd
on production boxes :)
On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 18:00 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 1/11/2012 5:51 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 14:41 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
cycles have taught us users aren't adopting our 2.odd releases. Sigh.
This is likely a carry over from the old days of
On 1/11/2012 6:26 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
Also, in relation to the windows stuff, I think Jim's suggestion is
most appropriate in the absence of more windows users to test.
If all we need is testing and some logging, I'd be happy to assist. If
someone can provide the compiled build and any
30 matches
Mail list logo
