Re: T of 2.4.24

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > On Dec 9, 2016, at 12:20 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > > > @VP Legal, is this worth an escalation? You

Re: svn commit: r1775705 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x-merge-http-strict: ./ server/protocol.c

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:20 PM, wrote: > > Author: wrowe > > Date: Thu Dec 22 19:20:25 2016 > > New Revision: 1775705 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1775705=rev > > Log: > > Backports:

Re: Frequent wake-ups for mpm_event

Hi Stefan, On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > > Today i had another server giving no answers to any requests. apache > fullstatus did not respond. Since v5 of the patch, I committed another related change in trunk, namely:

Re: svn commit: r1775696 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x-merge-http-strict/

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:45 PM, wrote: > > Author: wrowe > > Date: Thu Dec 22 18:45:59 2016 > > New Revision: 1775696 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1775696=rev > > Log: > > Backports:

Re: svn commit: r1775705 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x-merge-http-strict: ./ server/protocol.c

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:20 PM, wrote: > Author: wrowe > Date: Thu Dec 22 19:20:25 2016 > New Revision: 1775705 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1775705=rev > Log: > Backports: r1185385 > Submitted by: sf > Downgrade some more log messages indicating client errors

Re: svn commit: r1775696 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x-merge-http-strict/

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:45 PM, wrote: > Author: wrowe > Date: Thu Dec 22 18:45:59 2016 > New Revision: 1775696 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1775696=rev > Log: > Backports: r1100511 > Submitted by: covener > use APR_STATUS_IS_TIMEUP() instead of direct comparison

Re: svn commit: r1775752 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x-merge-http-strict/

No files showed up in commit On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 5:08 PM, wrote: > Author: wrowe > Date: Thu Dec 22 22:08:05 2016 > New Revision: 1775752 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1775752=rev > Log: > Backports: r172754c > Submitted by: rpluem > Ensure that proto_num and

Re: svn commit: r1769669 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x-merge-http-strict: ./ docs/manual/ docs/manual/mod/ include/ server/

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: > Am 22.12.2016 um 18:25 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: > >> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Eric Covener > > wrote: >> >> I think the log severity changes below could use

Re: svn commit: r1769669 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x-merge-http-strict: ./ docs/manual/ docs/manual/mod/ include/ server/

Am 22.12.2016 um 18:25 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Eric Covener > wrote: I think the log severity changes below could use some eyes, especially in context of 2.2. Are these lowered because they're redundant?

Re: svn commit: r1769669 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x-merge-http-strict: ./ docs/manual/ docs/manual/mod/ include/ server/

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > I think the log severity changes below could use some eyes, especially > in context of 2.2. Are these lowered because they're redundant? I > haven't yet looked. > > I am tempted to leave the old severities for 2.2 and

Re: APLOGNO in 2.2 backports

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > Should we have something like this in 2.2: > > #define APLOGNO(s) "" > > So subsequent backports don't need manual merging when the context has > a message ID in it? > IMO, no. Because if you are applying it as a patch

APLOGNO in 2.2 backports

Should we have something like this in 2.2: #define APLOGNO(s) "" So subsequent backports don't need manual merging when the context has a message ID in it? -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com

Re: svn commit: r1769669 [2/2] - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x-merge-http-strict: ./ docs/manual/ docs/manual/mod/ include/ server/

I think the log severity changes below could use some eyes, especially in context of 2.2. Are these lowered because they're redundant? I haven't yet looked. I am tempted to leave the old severities for 2.2 and wait and see if it's confusing in 2.4 (should not have to enable DEBUG to see the

Re: Change the content-length header for other filters

Hello, I've got the source code of mod_WebObjects, which is the destination module of the request. It registers a handler to process the incoming requests like ap_hook_handler(WebObjects_handler, NULL, NULL, APR_HOOK_MIDDLE); As I understand the Apache request processing, in this case the

Re: Change the content-length header for other filters

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Andre Rothe wrote: > I don't know, how mod_webobjects will read the request content, > but it seems, that my changes on the request are not transparent. > It is not a problem of the transmitted data, it is a length problem > (if I

Re: Change the content-length header for other filters

Hi, I use mod_ext_filter, which I have modified for my use case. The input filter part reads now till the EOS over multiple chunks into a brigade, which is then propagated to an external filter (PHP script). The script returns the modified POST parameters, which contain less bytes then the