On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>> Stefan,
>>
>> attached patch to serf 1.2.1 should solve this particular type of
>> crash you reported.
>>
>> The patch is made against a serf 1.2.x working copy as follows:
>> $ sv
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Stefan Küng wrote:
>...
> I'm not sure, but another crash report seems related to this:
> https://www.crash-server.com/Problem.aspx?ClientID=tsvn&ProblemID=26624
>
> The stacktrace of this one:
>...
> libsvn_tsvn.dll!handle_response(serf_request_t * request=0x0
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>...
> The fix seems to be pretty simple and could be safely backported (see
> patch). The only problem that probably we cannot backport addition of
> new configuration option due our backward compatibility policy. But
> may be I'm wrong.
The S
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> ...
>>> Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you downgrade to HTTP/1.0
>>> only because of the 411 (Content Lengt
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
...
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but why would you downgrade to HTTP/1.0
>> only because of the 411 (Content Length Required)? Can't you just
>> continue using HTTP/1.1, but use
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> Stefan,
>
> attached patch to serf 1.2.1 should solve this particular type of
> crash you reported.
>
> The patch is made against a serf 1.2.x working copy as follows:
> $ svn merge ^/trunk -c 1943,1944
Unfortunately the attached patch was
Stefan,
attached patch to serf 1.2.1 should solve this particular type of
crash you reported.
The patch is made against a serf 1.2.x working copy as follows:
$ svn merge ^/trunk -c 1943,1944
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> Follow up also to serf-dev.
>
> On Thu, Jun 20
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Philip Martin
>> wrote:
>>> Ivan Zhakov writes:
>>>
Problem with this approach that some servers may support HTTP/1.1
partially. I.e.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> Ivan Zhakov writes:
>>
>>> Problem with this approach that some servers may support HTTP/1.1
>>> partially. I.e. declare them as HTTP/1.1 but do not support chunked
>>> Transfer-
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> Ivan Zhakov writes:
>>
>>> Problem with this approach that some servers may support HTTP/1.1
>>> partially. I.e. declare them as HTTP/1.1 but do not support chunked
>>> Transfer-
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov writes:
>
>> Problem with this approach that some servers may support HTTP/1.1
>> partially. I.e. declare them as HTTP/1.1 but do not support chunked
>> Transfer-Encoding.
>>
>> I wanted to avoid downgrade to HTTP/1.0 on later re
Ivan Zhakov writes:
> Problem with this approach that some servers may support HTTP/1.1
> partially. I.e. declare them as HTTP/1.1 but do not support chunked
> Transfer-Encoding.
>
> I wanted to avoid downgrade to HTTP/1.0 on later requests because it
> could introduce requests ordering issue. Fo
12 matches
Mail list logo
