I expect to TR around 1pm eastern... all code and patches
expected to be in 2.4.12 are currently committed. No further
changes expected.
Hi,
It would be great if somebody finds time to review the proposed patch
for bug 57100 (and maybe commit it to trunk). Any feedback would be
greatly appreciated.
- https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57100
Regards,
Michael
(sorry, no time now to keep trying to trick the mail gatekeeper into
accepting my in-thread response)
Here are my notes from 6-7 months ago... They don't seem complete???
Maybe apxs_win32 from svn has fixes to avoid needing the editing to
ap*.bat/.pl suggested below. I also remember posting
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.12 can be found
at the usual place:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.12 GA.
[ ] +1: Good to go
[ ] +0: meh
[ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
Vote will last the normal 72
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Michael Kaufmann
m...@michael-kaufmann.ch wrote:
Hi,
It would be great if somebody finds time to review the proposed patch for
bug 57100 (and maybe commit it to trunk). Any feedback would be greatly
appreciated.
-
I think the first point of confusion stemmed from those bash CGI scripts
you mentioned. I could have sworn I saw more shebangs with paths in
/usr/bin/, but that might have come from my semi-odd setup. I'm ssh-ing
into cygwin then running the test suite with Strawberry perl through a
couple of
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Michael Kaufmann
m...@michael-kaufmann.ch wrote:
Hi,
It would be great if somebody finds time to review the proposed patch for
bug 57100 (and maybe commit it to trunk). Any feedback would be greatly
appreciated.
-
On 31 Dec 2014, at 5:56 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
For a URL of http://example.com/foo/bar/baz.html
# this matches against baz.html only
FilesMatch (.*\.html)$
Redirect http://other.example.com/$1
/FilesMatch
You would not have any way to match or capture some part of
Makes sense.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I chose not to fold it in... the config stuff was low
risk; the below was not great risk, but higher than
acceptable for a quick TR.
On Jan 22, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On
I chose not to fold it in... the config stuff was low
risk; the below was not great risk, but higher than
acceptable for a quick TR.
On Jan 22, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:25 PM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Thu Jan
Hi everyone I'm new to open source development and Apache and I wanted to
contribute to it. Can anyone get me started.
PS - I've already had looked on the stuff on the website.
Hi,
if you don't have any idea yet on what you would like to work on, maybe
a good start is to go thrue our bugzilla.
Look at subjects you understand or that seem easy.
If a patch is already proposed you can try and test it, then report any
feedback.
If no patch is available, you can propose
On 01/22/2015 12:22 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:28:46 -0600
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:00:10 -0500
Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:34 AM, jkal...@apache.org wrote:
+/*
Hi Jim,
Is the SO_REUSPORT patch committed in this build?
Thanks,
Lucy
-Original Message-
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 3:43 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [NOTICE] Intend to TR 2.4.12 tomorrow (Thurs, Jan 22)
I expect to TR
On 22 Jan 2015, at 7:54 PM, Mike Rumph mike.ru...@oracle.com wrote:
It might be preferred to use unsigned int for bit fields as is used in
mod_proxy.h.
IIRC there have been past discussions on problems resulting from signed bit
fields.
Updated in r1653978.
Regards,
Graham
—
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the update!
A quick question on the review and testing procedure. Right now, Yann Ylavic
already made available a 2.4 version of the patch. The link is included at
http://svn.apache.org/r1651967 . Is this good enough or is there anything
additional needed at this point? If
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:25 PM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Thu Jan 22 17:25:13 2015
New Revision: 1653955
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1653955
Log:
Vote and promote.
Modified:
httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
URL:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Michael Kaufmann
m...@michael-kaufmann.ch wrote:
Hi,
It would be great if somebody finds time to review the proposed patch for
bug 57100 (and maybe commit it to trunk). Any feedback would
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
I was about to propose a different patch which maybe is less intrusive
(does not require a new SSL_PROTOCOL_UNSET defined).
It simply initializes the base server's protocol with SSL_PROTOCOL_ALL
(as before) but the
On 1/22/2015 9:02 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
==
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_alias.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_alias.c Thu Jan 22 17:02:22 2015
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
#include
20 matches
Mail list logo
