Mark Thomas wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
svn cp
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.1.0/trunk
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk
Changes to
Good point
+1
Peter
Am 01.11.2007 um 09:51 schrieb jean-frederic clere:
Mark Thomas wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
svn cp
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.1.0/trunk
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43588.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Mark Thomas wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted stable?
We can do if that is the preference. My motivation is that I am keen to get
back to a CTR codebase asap as I find only having RTC a real pain.
he he, I think
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted
stable?
We can do if that is the preference. My motivation is that I am keen
to get
back to a CTR codebase asap as I find only having
Rainer -
This bug in the AJP protocol / isapi_redirect.dll is one we had to roll
our own patch for recently, and it looks like it might have gotten left
behind under the Tomcat 5 product.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42003
This should be a relatively small but impactful
Hi Peter,
did you read pages from inside the download files, or only follow the
link on the automatically generated download page?
The latter link points to the public Tomcat docs, so always will show
the latest released docs.
Inside the downloads, the changelog looks OK (apart from the missing
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43588.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:03 +, Mark Thomas wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted
stable?
We can do if that is the preference. My motivation is that I am keen
to get
back to a CTR codebase asap as I find only having RTC a
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43647.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43647.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
svn cp
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.1.0/trunk
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
On Nov 1, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
I didn't have time to go into it, but thanks for the detailed
report. We will fix this before 1.2.26.
Great, I'm glad to hear it.
In case you have a patch to propose, that'll be a good starting point.
Here's one attempt at a patch, which
On Nov 1, 2007, at 8:14 PM, Ian Ward Comfort wrote:
Here's one attempt at a patch, which fixes the problem in my
limited testing. It modifies the code path as little as possible,
since all I know about the intended behavior is what I've gleaned
from a cursory audit.
In working on this
14 matches
Mail list logo