On Thu, 01 May 2008 11:55:32 -0500
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So this bug can now be closed?
Yes, the bug was fixed.
> Does it yet still and yet affect apache 2.0?
No.
> Well, that would be a way across the board to bring the server down hard.
> I don't think it's necessa
Yes, will be doing this once we know SVN is good :)
On May 1, 2008, at 12:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Takashi Sato wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:24:31 -0500
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The suggestion for apr_bucket_alloc to fail more cleanly
r582228 made apr_buck
Takashi Sato wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:24:31 -0500
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The suggestion for apr_bucket_alloc to fail more cleanly
r582228 made apr_bucket_alloc return NULL.
( I've just become aware of it. )
So this bug can now be closed? Does it yet still an
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:24:31 -0500
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The suggestion for apr_bucket_alloc to fail more cleanly
r582228 made apr_bucket_alloc return NULL.
( I've just become aware of it. )
> for apr_allocator_alloc to win a new abort_fn hook,
I'm not sure why apr
Here's one for Davi, Takashi or whomever wants to jump on it.
"apr_bucket_alloc crash when apr_allocator_alloc fails"
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42066
The suggestion for apr_bucket_alloc to fail more cleanly, and
for apr_allocator_alloc to win a new abort_fn hook, sound l
