Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/20/2007 10:11 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Sorry for being impatient, but any update on the timetable?
I don't blame you, this has eaten many more hours than I expected.
It turns out there are all sorts of subtle side effects of the way
On 08/15/2007 07:38 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm rolling today, although not quite first thing as I had planned. I've
spent my time since vacation fighting with Win32-foo, and want to make sure
the release is solid on Win32 as well as unix.
Sorry for being impatient, but any
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Sorry for being impatient, but any update on the timetable?
I don't blame you, this has eaten many more hours than I expected.
It turns out there are all sorts of subtle side effects of the way
we are doing inheritance that must be fixed for spawned processes
to run
On 08/20/2007 10:11 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Sorry for being impatient, but any update on the timetable?
I don't blame you, this has eaten many more hours than I expected.
It turns out there are all sorts of subtle side effects of the way
we are doing
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 09:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It's a nice idea in 1.3, but since it's causing issues, simply revert.
Done in r565517.
Wasn't the (*new)-remote_addr_unknown = 0; causing the problem?
Are you
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 09:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 07:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've
discovered a set of socket
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 09:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It's a nice idea in 1.3, but since it's causing issues, simply revert.
Done in r565517.
Wasn't the (*new)-remote_addr_unknown = 0; causing the problem?
Are you thinking of the unix issue or
On 08/15/2007 07:38 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 09:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It's a nice idea in 1.3, but since it's causing issues, simply revert.
Done in r565517.
Wasn't the (*new)-remote_addr_unknown = 0;
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've
discovered a set of socket issues that need to be corrected by
apr-0.9.15.
I'd love to roll that on Tues eve/Wed am - but want to be sure,
are we happy with the resolutions
On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've
discovered a set of socket issues that need to be corrected by
apr-0.9.15.
I'd love to roll that on Tues eve/Wed am - but
Sorry for the cross post but this involves both
projects: If we (APR) decide that a 0.9.15 this
week makes sense, then I'm willing to hold off releasing
all 3 versions of httpd until then... If 0.9.15
will instead be pushed out until whenever, then
1.3 and 2.2 will go out this week no matter
On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:56 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The Darwin change for apr_filepath_encoding() was just
applied to trunk.
testenv : SUCCESS
testfile: SUCCESS
testfilecopy: SUCCESS
testfileinfo: SUCCESS
testflock : SUCCESS
testfmt
On 08/13/2007 07:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've
discovered a set of socket issues that need to be corrected by
apr-0.9.15.
How do we plan to address these? Like in 1.2.x by reverting the
backports (which seems to make sense to
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 07:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've
discovered a set of socket issues that need to be corrected by
apr-0.9.15.
How do we plan to address these? Like in 1.2.x by
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 07:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've
discovered a set of socket issues that need to be corrected by
apr-0.9.15.
How do we plan to address
On 08/13/2007 09:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 07:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've
discovered a set of socket issues that need to be
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 09:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/13/2007 07:38 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've
discovered a set of
Jim's spearheaded an effort to release httpd-2.0.60 and we've
discovered a set of socket issues that need to be corrected by
apr-0.9.15.
I'd love to roll that on Tues eve/Wed am - but want to be sure,
are we happy with the resolutions of our Darwin/utf8 issues, and
are those yet to be applied?
18 matches
Mail list logo
