On 01/03/2008 12:21 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
But there was a problem with the _default_ setting for a virtual host. I am
not sure
so far if this is my config or if there is something else going wrong on
Solaris 10.
I will investigate tomorrow.
This is a bug in Solaris 10. See also
Ruediger Pluem schrieb:
On 01/03/2008 12:21 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
But there was a problem with the _default_ setting for a virtual host. I am
not sure
so far if this is my config or if there is something else going wrong on
Solaris 10.
I will investigate tomorrow.
This is a bug
Rainer Jung schrieb:
been last updated on December 18 this year, although it goes back to
this - last (it's already next year) :)
Now that I am really back, I'd like to reboot the intent to
TR all three. 2.2 has a current show-stopper however, with a veto
upon the patch by Nick.
On 01/02/2008 05:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Now that I am really back, I'd like to reboot the intent to
TR all three. 2.2 has a current show-stopper however, with a veto
upon the patch by Nick.
You can solve this veto. Just vote for the vetoed patch plus for
* mod_proxy_ftp: Introduce
On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 01/02/2008 05:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Now that I am really back, I'd like to reboot the intent to
TR all three. 2.2 has a current show-stopper however, with a veto
upon the patch by Nick.
You can solve this veto. Just vote for the
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:56:23 -0500
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email
on why he didn't like it... Until that's resolved, the SS
still exists (though with a caveat)
In summary, I don't think that patch should spill outside
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email
on why he didn't like it...
Well, he wanted a patch for a narrowly defined mod_proxy_ftp-specific
directive context, but offered a patch to apply a server_rec, while
Rudiger's patch is against the dir_rec
On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:56:23 -0500
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email
on why he didn't like it... Until that's resolved, the SS
still exists (though with a caveat)
In summary, I
On 01/02/2008 07:04 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:56:23 -0500
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I saw that, but I wanted to dig deeper and read his Email
on why he didn't like it... Until that's resolved, the SS
On 01/02/2008 05:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Now that I am really back, I'd like to reboot the intent to
TR all three. 2.2 has a current show-stopper however, with a veto
upon the patch by Nick.
BTW: We have the same situation for 2.0.x. Only Nick did not put his
veto in the STATUS file in
FWIW, STATUS on the 2.x branches is cleaned up in anticipation
of the TR (there are no open patches for 1.3, afaik).
If you haven't already, I encourage everyone to 'svn up' and
at least run some prelim tests before I do the actual TR.
I've been working on getting my old Blade (Sol8) up and
On 01/02/2008 08:57 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
FWIW, STATUS on the 2.x branches is cleaned up in anticipation
of the TR (there are no open patches for 1.3, afaik).
FWIW, the reason that caused Nick to veto on 2.2.x is still there
on 2.0.x, so I guess it would be good if you could give it the
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
First results for SuSE 10.2:
2.2.x:
Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
---
t/ssl/pr43738.t42 50.00% 2 4
7 tests and 18 subtests skipped.
Failed
On 01/02/2008 08:57 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
FWIW, STATUS on the 2.x branches is cleaned up in anticipation
of the TR (there are no open patches for 1.3, afaik).
If you haven't already, I encourage everyone to 'svn up' and
at least run some prelim tests before I do the actual TR.
I've
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:56:27 +0100
Werner Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I think, I explained it on
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38034, here is a
summary again.
Thanks for the summary. It helps.
My Proposal:
Use the mod_dav-only patch as an
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
It would be a great New Year's gift to the community :)
Great
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:26:14 +0100
Werner Baumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing
On Dec 27, 2007, at 5:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Ruediger,
Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for
2.0.x.
For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and later
do
will pay any attention to it.
Steffen
http://www.apachelounge.com
- Original Message -
From: Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, 27 December, 2007 15:45
Subject: Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 27, 2007, at 5:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Ruediger,
Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since
Nick Kew wrote (concerning bug 38034):
A quick look at the reports shows a lot of competing patches, and a
lot of inconclusive discussion. So it doesn't look like a simple
matter just to apply patches and close bug.
If you're telling us it is a simple matter, perhaps you could post
a summary
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
It would be a great New Year's gift to the community :)
Hi Jim,
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
It would be a great New Year's gift to the community :)
great! Hehe, new
On 12/27/2007 06:39 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Jim,
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
It would be a great New
On 12/27/2007 03:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Here's what I'd like to propose:
o) We do another triple release: 1.3.40, 2.0.62 and 2.2.7
o) I tag and roll all 3 this Saturday (Dec 29th)
o) We anticipate releasing/announcing all on Jan 2, 2008
It would be a great New Year's gift
On 12/27/2007 11:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Ruediger,
Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and later do
not
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Ruediger,
Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and later do not have
this file any longer - so there's no real backport
On 12/27/2007 10:45 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Ruediger,
Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and later do not
have this file any longer -
Hi Ruediger,
Hm. I see no backport proposal for this in the STATUS file for 2.0.x.
For formal reasons please add one. I would be +1 as well.
sorry, but unfortunately that's not possible since 2.2.x and later do not have
this file any longer - so there's no real backport proposal possible
Hi,
As we have now three +1's (Guenther, you and me) we should not waste
further
time with formal discussions (which I started :-)). So Guenther please go
ahead with committing to the 2.0.x branch.
thanks; done:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=607132view=rev
Guen.
Hi,
any chance we can get this simple patch in to correct a type mismatch
which bothers me all the time when compiling with OpenSSL 0.9.8 on
NetWare?
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/ssl_scache_shmht.c.diff
--- ssl_scache_shmht.c.orig Wed Jul 12 09:40:56 2006
+++ ssl_scache_shmht.c
Hi,
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:52 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Anyone opposed to us shooting for a TR early next week?
If we can get a couple of security-related-but-not-really patches
committed to 2.0 I'd like to see that as well. I'm offering,
Sure... that would be
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:52 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Anyone opposed to us shooting for a TR early next week?
If we can get a couple of security-related-but-not-really patches
committed to 2.0 I'd like to see that as well. I'm offering,
Den Friday 14 December 2007 22.09.00 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
There's a simple way of not-so-rudely saying ...
Sorry if this came across harshly Odin, I watch those dialogs
daily on php-dev, I'd hate to see httpd-dev polluted with the
same volume of self
On Dec 17, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Oden Eriksson wrote:
apache and loads of third party apache modules in Mandriva Linux.
I'm not
authorized to vote here, for that I need to reincarnate myself as
an ASF
developer I guess.
As far as I see it, *any* feedback from *anyone* on a release
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Dezember 2007 14:49
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
Anyone opposed to us shooting for a TR early next week?
No. Let's rock.
I offer to RM
Thanks for doing so.
Regards
Anyone opposed to us shooting for a TR early next week?
I offer to RM
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Anyone opposed to us shooting for a TR early next week?
If we can get a couple of security-related-but-not-really patches
committed to 2.0 I'd like to see that as well. I'm offering, but
if you would enjoy it, I'll just focus on win32 src/binary packages
all around.
Bill
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:52 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Anyone opposed to us shooting for a TR early next week?
If we can get a couple of security-related-but-not-really patches
committed to 2.0 I'd like to see that as well. I'm offering,
Sure... that would be
Den Friday 14 December 2007 20.24.35 skrev Jim Jagielski:
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:52 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Anyone opposed to us shooting for a TR early next week?
If we can get a couple of security-related-but-not-really patches
committed to 2.0 I'd like to
Oden Eriksson wrote:
Den Friday 14 December 2007 20.24.35 skrev Jim Jagielski:
From what I can see, both 1.3 and 2.2 are backport
free, so it's just 2.0 right now.
Yup - and the review of significant 2.0 patches would only take
an hour or two, it's not that complex - things that were
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
There's a simple way of not-so-rudely saying ...
Sorry if this came across harshly Odin, I watch those dialogs
daily on php-dev, I'd hate to see httpd-dev polluted with the
same volume of self interest and vitriol. Let me make sure
I answered what you might have
On 12/14/2007 08:24 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007, at 12:52 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Anyone opposed to us shooting for a TR early next week?
If we can get a couple of security-related-but-not-really patches
committed to 2.0 I'd like to see that as
Hi,
Jim Jagielski schrieb:
From what I can see, both 1.3 and 2.2 are backport
free, so it's just 2.0 right now.
maybe a good candidate for inclusion in 2.0 would be
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43943
shmcb crash on Sparc when compiled with gcc 4.
It has been fixed with
On 12/10/2007 08:31 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Are you talking about
#define AJP_MAX_BUFFER_SZ 16384
in ajp.h?
If yes, it was you in r467257 :-).
ROTFL :-)
I'm definitely getting older.
Anyhow the max is 64K, so it should be updated accordingly
to
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 12/10/2007 08:31 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Are you talking about
#define AJP_MAX_BUFFER_SZ 16384
in ajp.h?
If yes, it was you in r467257 :-).
ROTFL :-)
I'm definitely getting older.
Anyhow the max is 64K, so it should be updated
On 12/10/2007 10:26 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
It is since 1.2.19, check for max_packet_size.
http://tomcat.apache.org/connectors-doc/reference/workers.html
Thanks for the pointer.
Regards
Rüdiger
On Dec 9, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 12/08/2007 04:04 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/27/2007 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
With APR now out, I think we're close to releasing 1.3.40 and
2.2.7... Anyone opposed with that gameplan?
There are 9 backport proposals
On 12/08/2007 04:04 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 11/27/2007 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
With APR now out, I think we're close to releasing 1.3.40 and
2.2.7... Anyone opposed with that gameplan?
There are 9 backport proposals currently in the STATUS file
and 7 of them only miss one
Hi,
On 12/08/2007 04:04 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective there
is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7.
Jim do you still volunteer to RM?
I see a new small issue with mod_proxy_ajp which I've not yet tracked down;
maybe my config is
On 12/09/2007 04:47 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
On 12/08/2007 04:04 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective there
is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7.
Jim do you still volunteer to RM?
I see a new small issue with mod_proxy_ajp
Hi Ruediger,
On 12/09/2007 04:47 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Could you please post these warning messages and your config, such that
others can
have a view in parallel?
sure; warnings:
[Sat Dec 08 22:07:12 2007] [warn] worker ajp://localhost:9009 already used by
another worker
[Sat Dec 08
Guenter Knauf wrote:
On 12/08/2007 04:04 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective there
is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7.
Jim do you still volunteer to RM?
I see a new small issue with mod_proxy_ajp which I've not yet tracked down;
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective there
is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7.
FYI you failed to backport the win32 build file to mod_substitute,
so I'll go ahead and do that along with review the entire package
today so it's ready as a
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:30:05 +0100
Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks folks for all the reviewing work done. From my perspective
there is now nothing left between us and 2.2.7.
Oops, there's an unexpected proxy compliance violation
(fails to subtract Max-Forwards of 1 in Trace and
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 18:09:41 +
Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops, there's an unexpected proxy compliance violation
(fails to subtract Max-Forwards of 1 in Trace and Options requests).
Report:
http://people.apache.org/~niq/coadvisor/2.2-dec9.html#violation
Investigating now.
The
Jess Holle wrote:
Now that you bring up mod_proxy_ajp... Has the flexible packet size
stuff been backported to 2.2.x yet? This stuff is important for some
cases. mod_jk has it and I believe trunk does as well.
It does, but don't know why it was limited to the 16384 bytes,
and who
Thanks!
--
Jess Holle
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Now that you bring up mod_proxy_ajp... Has the flexible packet size
stuff been backported to 2.2.x yet? This stuff is important for some
cases. mod_jk has it and I believe trunk does as well.
It does, but don't know why it was
Hi,
question regarding mod_substitute docu:
This is an experimental module and should be used with care.
should this warning remain now that its moved out of experimental?
Guenter.
On 12/09/2007 10:02 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
question regarding mod_substitute docu:
This is an experimental module and should be used with care.
should this warning remain now that its moved out of experimental?
+1 to remove experimental from the docs.
Regards
Rüdiger
On 12/09/2007 08:30 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Jess Holle wrote:
Now that you bring up mod_proxy_ajp... Has the flexible packet size
stuff been backported to 2.2.x yet? This stuff is important for some
cases. mod_jk has it and I believe trunk does as well.
It does, but don't know why
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 12/09/2007 10:02 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
question regarding mod_substitute docu:
This is an experimental module and should be used with care.
should this warning remain now that its moved out of experimental?
+1 to remove experimental from the docs.
+1 from
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Are you talking about
#define AJP_MAX_BUFFER_SZ 16384
in ajp.h?
If yes, it was you in r467257 :-).
ROTFL :-)
I'm definitely getting older.
Anyhow the max is 64K, so it should be updated accordingly
to mod_jk and what Tomcat accepts.
Cheers,
Mladen
On 12/09/2007 08:04 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
however this works not - does the $1 only work for AliasMatch and not with
LocationMatch?
LocationMatch /examples/(jsp|servlet|servlets)
ProxyPass ajp://localhost:58009/examples/$1
/LocationMatch
Have you tried to use
On 11/27/2007 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
With APR now out, I think we're close to releasing 1.3.40 and
2.2.7... Anyone opposed with that gameplan?
There are 9 backport proposals currently in the STATUS file
and 7 of them only miss one vote. The two remaining ones
only require some
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:04:21 +0100
Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are 9 backport proposals currently in the STATUS file
and 7 of them only miss one vote. The two remaining ones
only require some more or less large adjustments to the proposal
and should miss only one vote after
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Ruediger Pluem
Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007 21:26
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: time for 1.3.40 and 2.2.7 ?
On 11/27/2007 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
With APR now out, I think we're close to releasing 1.3.40 and
2.2.7
With APR now out, I think we're close to releasing 1.3.40 and
2.2.7... Anyone opposed with that gameplan?
On 11/27/2007 07:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
With APR now out, I think we're close to releasing 1.3.40 and
2.2.7... Anyone opposed with that gameplan?
Sounds very good for me. I think there is only one issue left that needs fixing:
The fd leaking on Windows for which Bill proposed a backport
70 matches
Mail list logo
