Re: Wherefor 2.4.36?
> Am 07.10.2018 um 03:16 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri : > > Actually, I'm glad you asked. I committed after 2.4.35 to T 2.4.36 soon > after. I'm happy to do that ASAP if there are no objections. > > What say you, fellow devs? How about next week? > -- > Daniel Ruggeri > > On October 6, 2018 7:53:58 PM CDT, Michael-Fever wrote: > > Aww, all I care about is getting 2.4.36 going so I can say I have TLS 1.3 > supported with my h2. LOL, no but seriously, is 2.4.36 stable enough to be > using? +1 Very happy to see that. Thanks, Daniel!
Re: Wherefor 2.4.36?
Since this tag is only days away, the committers would really appreciate any feedback from early adopters. I'm not certain on the status of the auth hook fix, but believe it's certainly ready to have the tires kicked, so we can avoid any quirks resulting from the TLS 1.3 efforts. Please feel free to try it from the 2.4.x branch and let us know your observations. I believe it is stable enough for review now. On Sat, Oct 6, 2018, 19:54 Michael-Fever wrote: > > Aww, all I care about is getting 2.4.36 going so I can say I have TLS 1.3 > supported with my h2. LOL, no but seriously, is 2.4.36 stable enough to be > using? > > > > -- > Sent from: > http://apache-http-server.18135.x6.nabble.com/Apache-HTTP-Server-Dev-f4771363.html >
Re: Wherefor 2.4.36?
On 07 Oct 2018, at 03:16, Daniel Ruggeri wrote: > Actually, I'm glad you asked. I committed after 2.4.35 to T 2.4.36 soon > after. I'm happy to do that ASAP if there are no objections. > > What say you, fellow devs? How about next week? +1 and thank you. Would be good to see TLS 1.3 out the door. Regards, Graham —
Re: Wherefor 2.4.36?
Actually, I'm glad you asked. I committed after 2.4.35 to T 2.4.36 soon after. I'm happy to do that ASAP if there are no objections. What say you, fellow devs? How about next week? -- Daniel Ruggeri On October 6, 2018 7:53:58 PM CDT, Michael-Fever wrote: > >Aww, all I care about is getting 2.4.36 going so I can say I have TLS >1.3 >supported with my h2. LOL, no but seriously, is 2.4.36 stable enough >to be >using? > > > >-- >Sent from: >http://apache-http-server.18135.x6.nabble.com/Apache-HTTP-Server-Dev-f4771363.html
Re: Wherefor 2.4.36?
Aww, all I care about is getting 2.4.36 going so I can say I have TLS 1.3 supported with my h2. LOL, no but seriously, is 2.4.36 stable enough to be using? -- Sent from: http://apache-http-server.18135.x6.nabble.com/Apache-HTTP-Server-Dev-f4771363.html
Re: Wherefor 2.4.36?
On 08/06/2018 07:37 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: It appears 2.4.34 is unusable [...] BTW: How usable is it compared to trunk? Regards, Micha ... poking for a 2.6 release.
Re: Wherefor 2.4.36?
On 07/08/2018 03:37, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > It appears 2.4.35 is unusable, as other distributors also paused to start > hauling in regression fixes as they eh? unusable? I have rooms full of them with no errors or problems -- Kind Regards, Noel Butler This Email, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged information, therefore remains confidential and subject to copyright protected under international law. You may not disseminate, discuss, or reveal, any part, to anyone, without the authors express written authority to do so. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender then delete all copies of this message including attachments, immediately. Confidentiality, copyright, and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken delivery of this message. Only PDF [1] and ODF [2] documents accepted, please do not send proprietary formatted documents Links: -- [1] http://www.adobe.com/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
Re: Wherefor 2.4.36?
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 1:37 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Is anyone else disappointed in the number of regressions in 2.4.35? > Could you point them out?
Re: Wherefor 2.4.36?
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:37 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Is anyone else disappointed in the number of regressions in 2.4.35? > > Is anyone else interested in releasing 2.4.36 promptly with no new > features or enhancements which may cause 2.4.36 to be similarly unusable? > Which backports or reversions of new code are still needed to get to that > point? > > s/2.4.36/2.4.35/; s/2.4.35/2.4.34/; Sorry, I jumped over 2.4.34 so quickly after the chunking regression that my numbering is already out of whack.
