Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/792
[approve ci]
@gtenev Please review.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/792
Thanks @gtenev. @ftarnell can you fix the clang format error (see the linux
build above), and then we can land this.
Thanks!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/795
:+1:
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/796
:+1:
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/797
The patch seems fine, but I'm a little concerned why those were put in
there to begin with? Obviously some sort of sentinel at some point? As long as
we don't need those, I&#x
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/644
Aww, don't close it. I don't think anything absolutely wrong here, we
should land this. There are things that needs to be fixed, but they are pretty
minor (like, squashing, clang-for
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/644
Hmmm, well, if it doesn't work, then it's a moot point. I know people have
implemented rate limiting in plugins, it was just never open sourced. If you
don't feel strongly about
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/803
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/803
This fails on clang-format, please re-run and push --force.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/803
add to whitelist
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/803
Could we use the ats_scoped_obj here? Or some other smart ptr? I'm ok
either way, but maybe we should encourage these smart pointer patterns?
This might change memory management t
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804
Almost, but not quite. :) All APIs that are prefixed TS are the public
APIs, and we don't use those in the internal code. Look at the log tags in
logging that uses the internal APIs fo
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/805
Cool. Can you add a documentation to this too? Either just add a new file,
e.g.
doc/developer-guide/api/functions/TSRuntimeDirGet.en.rst
Or, my personal preference, merge
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/805
Also, please add some tests to proxy/InkAPITest.cc, see how the existing
tests are done for e.g. TSInstallDirGet.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/805
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/806
This is a good start, but it's missing a few things (I think at least, been
a while since I looked at this). Look at how the eval() function is handling
the different cases. But at le
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804
It's an inefficiency for starters (you go through a C-> C++ wrapper layer,
for no good reason (remember, the public APIs are all C, whereas in the core,
you can use all the C++ obj
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804#discussion_r71084262
--- Diff: proxy/http/HttpTransactHeaders.cc ---
@@ -750,12 +752,10 @@
HttpTransactHeaders::insert_via_header_in_request(HttpTransact::State *s, HTTPHd
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/802
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/798#discussion_r71084358
--- Diff: plugins/experimental/esi/lib/Variables.cc ---
@@ -357,9 +357,26 @@ Variables::_parseCookieString(const char *str, int
str_len
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/798#discussion_r71084383
--- Diff: plugins/experimental/esi/esi.cc ---
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct OptionInfo {
};
static HandlerManager *gHandlerManager = NULL
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804#discussion_r71085418
--- Diff: proxy/http/HttpTransactHeaders.cc ---
@@ -750,12 +752,10 @@
HttpTransactHeaders::insert_via_header_in_request(HttpTransact::State *s, HTTPHd
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804
I suspect this failed for other reasons, trying again [approve ci].
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804
I checked the core on this FreeBSD build, and it seems completely unrelated
to pretty much anything :).
```
(gdb) bt
#0 0x in ?? ()
#1 0x006ec34a
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804
@yatsukhnenko What do you think of a future feature (config) to disable
this Via checking completely? If I know there's not chance of a loop, why
bother checking the Via header? I gues
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/804
Did a quick test of this, and it looks good:
Via: http/1.1 fedora.ogre.com[f6f5162d-5a02-4d10-ac6e-35aede508fe5]
(ApacheTrafficServer/7.0.0)
---
If your project is set up for it
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1007
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1009
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1010
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1010
Clang-forma, trailing white spaces here:
```C++
-} else {
+} else {
```
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/995
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1014
Please test on docs, cursory code review looks good.
:+1:
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/993
Alan, no, it'll work afaik. It'll only fail if you go out of the way and
remove the IPv6 kernel module.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/993
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1024
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/749
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1035
TS-4866: Makes traffic_cop killing optional
This adds a new configuration option, proxy.config.cop.active_health_checks:
0 - traffic_cop is not allowed to kill any processes
1
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1028
@jpeach we ok to land this now?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/963
@ngara Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like we still have 3
commits in this PR. If that's the case, can you please squash that down into a
single commit? No reason to
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1035
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1052
I tried this on docs, and it fails fast:
```
(gdb) bt
#0 0x740305f7 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=6) at
../nptl/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/raise.c:56
#1
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1025
Should we land this?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1055
[approve ci]
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/502
Ping on this? Do we still want to move along with this?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1066#discussion_r81415497
--- Diff: proxy/http/HttpTransactHeaders.cc ---
@@ -812,26 +813,16 @@
HttpTransactHeaders::insert_via_header_in_response(HttpTransact::State *s, HTTPH
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1066#discussion_r81411258
--- Diff: proxy/http/HttpTransactHeaders.cc ---
@@ -812,26 +813,16 @@
HttpTransactHeaders::insert_via_header_in_response(HttpTransact::State *s, HTTPH
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1066#discussion_r81413339
--- Diff: proxy/http/HttpTransactHeaders.cc ---
@@ -812,26 +813,16 @@
HttpTransactHeaders::insert_via_header_in_response(HttpTransact::State *s, HTTPH
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1066#discussion_r81416662
--- Diff: proxy/http/HttpTransactHeaders.cc ---
@@ -812,26 +813,16 @@
HttpTransactHeaders::insert_via_header_in_response(HttpTransact::State *s, HTTPH
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1066
I'm generally ok with this, up to you if you wish to clean anything up.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1067
Mostly out of curiosity, is there a particular header here in the (limited)
set of headers that is likely to have multi-values?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/issues/1071
We should make the old behavior optional to enable as well, there's a
significant number of backends (origins) that do not support RFC7239 yet but
need the old semantics.
---
If
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/issues/1071
Right, but your comments say "replaces". I think we should keep both,
indefinitely.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1076
TS-4929: No loading of HostDB disk file if sync_frequency=0
This has two benefit (2) is most important I think:
1) We avoid warnings on startup about not being able to load the HostDB
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1078
TS-4930: Unfolds request headers that are using obs continuations
I also removed a file that is basically a duplication of another file, and
this duplicated file is not used at all. This
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1074
@gtenev Can you review this please?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1074
I'd imagine this is a backport candidate for at least 7.0.0, maybe 6.2.x ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as wel
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1078
Try build on freebsd again [approve ci].
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1076
Yes, they would have TTLs, but if I turned off syncing, I certainly
wouldn't expect it to load something old. What if I had bad entries? What if I
had a corruption of some sort? Since it
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1076
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1087
TS-4945: Remove unused member variable, epoll_vc
CID 1364096
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/zwoop/trafficserver TS-4945
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1090
TS-4949: Disables the fuzzy revalidation logic by default
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/zwoop/trafficserver TS-4949
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1089
Maybe you have to rebase this from master, to get the clang-format fixes
that were done yesterday.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1090
I'll leave this sitting for another day or so, we had already (in April I
think) marked these as deprecated for 6.2.0, and no one objected then either.
---
If your project is set up f
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1088
Clang-format ...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1097#discussion_r82917530
--- Diff: mgmt/RecordsConfig.cc ---
@@ -1449,6 +1449,8 @@ static const RecordElement RecordsConfig[] =
,
{RECT_CONFIG
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1081
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1099
@gtenev This looks very strange, did you pull/rebase your tree first?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1100
Just a heads up, but this PR is against 6.2.x branch, the code has
diverged, so will need one PR for 6.2.x and one for master. @gtenev Please make
a PR for master at your earliest convenience
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1101
TS-4959: Remove remnants of old UA configurations and handling
I made this as two commits:
1) Remove some definitely strange code around MSIE.
2) Remove all the code around
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1100
Try again [approve ci].
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1100
Try again [approve ci].
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1101
Rebuilding again, because I think the trees on the buildbots was busted
[approve ci].
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1101
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1090
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1114
Clang format
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1109
Is this a duplicate PR?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1078
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1116#discussion_r83893797
--- Diff: proxy/http/HttpTransact.cc ---
@@ -1075,6 +1073,8 @@ HttpTransact::ModifyRequest(State *s)
if (!request.is_target_in_url
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1117#discussion_r83908521
--- Diff: proxy/http2/Http2Stream.cc ---
@@ -675,6 +675,17 @@ Http2Stream::destroy()
}
chunked_handler.clear();
super::destroy
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1117
Sigh, it failed again on the bison generated files :-/. [approve ci].
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1117
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1125
Looking back, it seems this is basically handled (but better) with #1079 ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1115
Besides the failures ( ;-) ) I think this is something we should do. It's a
fairly simple change (hopefully), retains the modularity (by retaining the
Makefile.inc's and then in
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1125
I see. The first portion of this patch is important, whereas the second
portion is done (better?) in #1079.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1129
TS-4992: Do not build the static libraries
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/zwoop/trafficserver TS-4992
Alternatively you
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1128
@jsime Can you review please?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1133
TS-4993: Disables escaping and quotes inside regexes
In addition, this cleans up the unit tests a bit, to make it more useful
from
the command line when testing/debugging. New tests are
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1134
Hmmm, are we sure this makes sense? The CPP APIs aren't plugins, and we
certainly don't put the TS API's into plugins. I could perhaps see this go into
proxy somewhere.
---
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1133#discussion_r84770458
--- Diff: plugins/header_rewrite/header_rewrite_test.cc ---
@@ -31,274 +33,395 @@ const char PLUGIN_NAME_DBG[] =
"TEST_dbg_header_rewrite";
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1133#discussion_r84770538
--- Diff: plugins/header_rewrite/parser.cc ---
@@ -133,14 +152,15 @@ Parser::preprocess(std::vector tokens)
std::string s = tokens[0].substr
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1133#discussion_r84729282
--- Diff: plugins/header_rewrite/header_rewrite_test.cc ---
@@ -31,274 +33,395 @@ const char PLUGIN_NAME_DBG[] =
"TEST_dbg_header_rewrite";
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1133#discussion_r84723539
--- Diff: plugins/header_rewrite/header_rewrite_test.cc ---
@@ -31,274 +33,395 @@ const char PLUGIN_NAME_DBG[] =
"TEST_dbg_header_rewrite";
Github user zwoop commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1133#discussion_r84770706
--- Diff: plugins/header_rewrite/parser.cc ---
@@ -133,14 +152,15 @@ Parser::preprocess(std::vector tokens)
std::string s = tokens[0].substr
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1133
Randall and I ran into another issue with this patch, so doing some more
debugging :-/.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1136
TS-5000: Moves experimental plugins to the new include mechanism
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/zwoop/trafficserver TS
Github user zwoop closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1137
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
GitHub user zwoop opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1143
TS-4582: Do not allow multiple --policy arguments
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/zwoop/trafficserver TS-4582
Github user zwoop commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/1142
You should use the Jira number.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
1 - 100 of 910 matches
Mail list logo
