Hi,
The fact that the apr_proc* API is so horribly convoluted yet still
broken on Win32 is kind of ironic. If it's not fixable can we just
abandon it? The code to implement piped loggers can be much simpler and
more efficient on Unix if implemented natively.
may I ask a question on this
Guenter Knauf wrote:
may I ask a question on this topic: why is piped logging so
important, and why dont we add f.e. mod_log_rotate which does the job
of rotating logs more nicerly on every platform? That would avoid 95%
usage of piped logging:
Status Update:
There are issues in the current shipping version of
APR 0.9 that must be resolved before we can reroll 2.0.x.
Furthermore, there are issues in APR 1.2 that should be
fixed (although not regression related) before we redo
2.2.x... Once APR is tagged and rolled, we will use
that to
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Status Update:
There are issues in the current shipping version of
APR 0.9 that must be resolved before we can reroll 2.0.x.
Furthermore, there are issues in APR 1.2 that should be
fixed (although not regression related) before we redo
2.2.x... Once APR is tagged and
On Aug 20, 2007, at 4:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Status Update:
There are issues in the current shipping version of
APR 0.9 that must be resolved before we can reroll 2.0.x.
Furthermore, there are issues in APR 1.2 that should be
fixed (although not regression
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Of course, releases can't be vetoed, but doing further research
indicates that Bill looks to be spot on with this issue...
The point is, this was released. Iteratively. I'm just not in a mood
to keep +1'ing releases while the code remains in this broken state.
It
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 03:36:59PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
The crux of the problem is that we create processes without a full host
of three fd's. Then we inflict them against sh. Linux/bash doesn't seem
to mind, but solaris sh, and I'm guessing aix and hpux stock /bin/sh are
not going to
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Of course, releases can't be vetoed, but doing further research
indicates that Bill looks to be spot on with this issue...
The point is, this was released. Iteratively. I'm just not in a mood
to keep +1'ing releases while the code
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It is mostly the same people, regardless. Bill could tag 0.9.15
and start a release vote on APR while Jim rebuilds 2.0.x based
on that
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Once Bill tags APR, I'll do more pre-tag regressions,
re-roll 2.x and then look at releasing next week.
+1 I'll be looking out for the tarball.
I did have a configure failure on netbsd 3.1 where it failed a sed
script looking for APR... this was a regression from 2.2.4.
10 matches
Mail list logo
