I'll deal with it.
Jim
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
This was sent to me directly, anyone willing to act on it? (I don't have
the CPU cycles right now).
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:07 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: new mod_python faq
I'm +1 on going for 3.2.10.
You in Canada probably have it easier - I think we hit 96F/35C at some
point today or yesterday (I wouldn't know I'm in the office which has AC
sunrise to sunset, I just listen to the news), and unfortunately (or not)
due to work pressures I have no time for
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
For 3.2.9 I called for 2 rounds of testing: one for the release
candidate and one for the final tarball. Do folks here feel that is
necessary for 3.2.10 or should I just jump right to the 3.2.10 final?
That tarball would still be subject to a vote on
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
(we'll just have to make a
3.2.11 then).
Let's call that one the Spinal Tap version. :)
That makes sence and explains why i couldn't use a HEAD request to ge the content-lenght of a list of file while mod_deflate was on.On 7/18/06, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
I might be getting this all wrong but doesn't the Content-Lenght require mod_deflate
On 07/18/2006 01:05 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
It's not in case of C-L. For a starter HEAD is used by quite many robots
with simplistic caches to verify that the copy they have is current and
correct.
The RFC is quite strict that entity headers of a HEAD response SHOULD
match those of
Pretty soon I'll be committing my balancer set patch to
httpd-trunk. This basically allows for member sets within
a balancer similar to the 'distance' mod_jk attribute.
What it does is allow for more control over which
members will be used via m_p_b. The logic is:
Look for all usable
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Pretty soon I'll be committing my balancer set patch to
httpd-trunk. This basically allows for member sets within
a balancer similar to the 'distance' mod_jk attribute.
Huh, thanks :)
I've only spend two weeks on it.
--
Mladen.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Pretty soon I'll be committing my balancer set patch to
httpd-trunk. This basically allows for member sets within
a balancer similar to the 'distance' mod_jk attribute.
What it does is allow for more control over which
members will be used via m_p_b. The logic is:
Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Pretty soon I'll be committing my balancer set patch to
httpd-trunk. This basically allows for member sets within
a balancer similar to the 'distance' mod_jk attribute.
What it does is allow for more control over which
members will be
Cache validation is not my expertise although I've enjoyed participating
in the banter over how to support 1 to 3 hit cache lookups of variants
which also vary ;-) This thread is certainly of interest to those of you
working in the area of cache invalidation, current in discussion and raised
by
On 18.07.2006 17:46, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It would be cool to have an idempotence flag in the next major release for
handlers/filters to say that the arbitrary method operation munged the
origin,
or it did not. Thoughts?
This can be difficult.
How do you want to handle this with
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 18.07.2006 17:46, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It would be cool to have an idempotence flag in the next major release for
handlers/filters to say that the arbitrary method operation munged the
origin,
or it did not. Thoughts?
This can be difficult.
How do you want to
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
What would be the default for 3rd party modules that do not set it?
Follow the RFC of course, GET, HEAD and OPTIONS are idempotent, other
methods are not.
Good point - we need a decisive yes/no and unset value here.
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Yes, I'd propose waiting to commit that. The sole reason is
that the member-set and other previously committed patches
will likely be more readily approved for backporting to 2.2.x,
whereas the scoreboard changes might be more difficult :)
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Pretty soon I'll be committing my balancer set patch to
httpd-trunk. This basically allows for member sets within
a balancer similar to the 'distance' mod_jk attribute.
What it does is allow for more control over
Jean-frederic Clere wrote:
Ok. That gives me time to write more memory slot handler.
Mladen's also let me know offlist that he's working on some
AJP stuff as well, so the current schedule is that after
he's added that, I'll add my member set patch.
--
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Yes, I'd propose waiting to commit that. The sole reason is
that the member-set and other previously committed patches
will likely be more readily approved for backporting to 2.2.x,
whereas the scoreboard changes might
December 2nd 2004 Bill Stoddard committed the start of a mod_arm4
instrumentation module to the httpd project. I believe that was always
intended to be a module of [EMAIL PROTECTED], and not a 'subproject'. However,
we are coming up on 20 months of code, with no signal of a release.
Would it
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Deron Meranda wrote:
Just want some verification because I haven't seen anything
official looking
Is 3.2.9 now considered a bad release because of its memory
leaks, and thus will never be released?
It's not so much that it's a bad release, but rather it didn't
Summary;
+1 binding: wrowe
+1 nonbinding feedback (with qualitative data) from:
Jorge Schrauwen
James Park (pencil_ethics)
Trent Nelson
As none of the other pmc members care to inspect the source tarball, the
vote fails. As Roy has raised concerns about httpd's ongoing
21 matches
Mail list logo
