Author: mturk
Date: Fri Dec 23 00:36:18 2005
New Revision: 358769
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=358769view=rev
Log:
Fix Cookie2 header problems that originates back
from mod_jk. Cookie2 was always sent as Cookie.
Any objections to backport that to 2.2 branch?
Regards,
Mladen.
Hi --
I have a particular setup where what I'd like to do is reject all
requests that contain a particular HTTP header (in this case, a header
injected by hardware that means the request is coming from outside our
private network). Here's what I thought I could do:
SetEnv FOO 1
SetEnvIf
Hi,
* Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-21 17:03:22]:
I did not changed my mind on this point : these scripts do not belong
to the mod_mbox repository, or at least not to trunk/ (and thus,
releases).
I think they should stay in trunk. I just don't think they should
be included
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
Ok, updated tarballs have been uploaded to
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_mbox. Vote is restarted.
They should be called 0.2.1, though I'll let that pass as there were
no code changes. However, you do need to remember to check the
--On December 23, 2005 1:56:03 PM -0800 Roy T. Fielding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
Ok, updated tarballs have been uploaded to
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_mbox. Vote is restarted.
They should be called 0.2.1, though I'll let that
--On December 23, 2005 1:56:03 PM -0800 Roy T. Fielding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] However, you do need to remember to check the
file permissions after uploading the files. They need to be
chmod 664 *
I fixed them myself the last time, but don't have time right now.
His umask is
* Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-23 13:57:17]:
--On December 23, 2005 1:56:03 PM -0800 Roy T. Fielding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 10:34 AM, Maxime Petazzoni wrote:
Ok, updated tarballs have been uploaded to
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/mod_mbox. Vote is
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 01:56:03PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
no code changes. However, you do need to remember to check the
file permissions after uploading the files. They need to be
chmod 664 *
I fixed them myself the last time, but don't have time right now.
I've already
--On December 24, 2005 12:00:57 AM +0100 Maxime Petazzoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, why does this tarball should be called 0.2.1 ? Just because I
changed some files in the archive ? I just need some explainations :
since 0.2.0 was never released, why sould we increment the revision number
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Yes, a release is one-shot only. Once you announce it, it's technically
burned. This is why we don't have release candidates... It is either
approved or it isn't. -- justin
Thus our mantra, Version numbers are cheap :)
* Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-12-23 15:13:47]:
--On December 24, 2005 12:00:57 AM +0100 Maxime Petazzoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, why does this tarball should be called 0.2.1 ? Just because I
changed some files in the archive ? I just need some explainations :
since
On 12/23/05, Maxime Petazzoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this tarball was not yet a release, does it still apply ? You're
getting self-contradictory here :)
It doesn't really matter, the point is that you've now got a situation
where there are multiple different tarballs with the same
--On December 24, 2005 12:49:33 AM +0100 Maxime Petazzoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since this tarball was not yet a release, does it still apply ?
Yes.
You're getting self-contradictory here :)
It's not self-contradictory at all. A release occurs when you (as RM) say
is is created.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Yes, a release is one-shot only. Once you announce it, it's technically
burned. This is why we don't have release candidates... It is either
approved or it isn't. -- justin
Thus our mantra, Version numbers are cheap :)
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On December 24, 2005 12:00:57 AM +0100 Maxime Petazzoni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, why does this tarball should be called 0.2.1 ? Just because I
changed some files in the archive ? I just need some explainations :
since 0.2.0 was never released, why sould
15 matches
Mail list logo
