Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
Nick Kew wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:44:33 -0500 (EST) > Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > > > > On 12/15/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I see your point 100% though... I really hoped that we would > > > > have had a 2.2.4 o

Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread Nick Kew
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:44:33 -0500 (EST) Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > > On 12/15/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I see your point 100% though... I really hoped that we would > > > have had a 2.2.4 out sooner, but the votes didn't com

Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > But tell you what, if you want to do a 2.2.4 Sun/Mon > > then I'll do 2.2.5 mid-Jan (assuming there's enough for > > a release)... > > That sounds like a deal, late Sun or early Mon depending on the localized > family crises :) > I wou

Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jim Jagielski wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >> Seriously, some of us will likely hack at this during the holidays, >> and at some point, the version drift will be so great that it becomes >> very hard to track down where breakage was introduced. >> >> 2.2.4 by early this coming week, followe

Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On 12/15/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I see your point 100% though... I really hoped that we would > > have had a 2.2.4 out sooner, but the votes didn't come as > > fast as expected :) > > What votes? I haven't seen any votes for 2.2.4. -- justin

Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On 12/15/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I see your point 100% though... I really hoped that we would have had a 2.2.4 out sooner, but the votes didn't come as fast as expected :) What votes? I haven't seen any votes for 2.2.4. -- justin

Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > Seriously, some of us will likely hack at this during the holidays, > and at some point, the version drift will be so great that it becomes > very hard to track down where breakage was introduced. > > 2.2.4 by early this coming week, followed by 2.2.5 after the hol

Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jim Jagielski wrote: > > I wasn't waiting forever... I just wanted a good solid release > that would stand the test of time, for a bit :) > > Having a release so close to the holidays is, I think, > unfair, since it provides a "push" for people to upgrade. > But if there is a real desire by peopl

Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > I'd still like to push a 2.2.4 out, say VERY early in Dec. > > There are some backports awaiting just 1 single vote > > to be approved, and others which look VERY worthwhile > > to be in this version. Let's all take some time and > > look ov

Re: 2.2.4

2006-12-15 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'd still like to push a 2.2.4 out, say VERY early in Dec. > There are some backports awaiting just 1 single vote > to be approved, and others which look VERY worthwhile > to be in this version. Let's all take some time and > look over them ;) Well, I'm a little confused, po

Re: httpd-proxy-scoreboard how to go on

2006-12-15 Thread Jim Jagielski
You mean removing the mod_proxy usage of scoreboard space to a "simple" shared memory segment? I thought the whole idea was to abstract out the scoreboard so that it was easier for people to add and remove tables from the scoreboard... the so-called "generic" scoreboard. I don't really see the d

Re: httpd-proxy-scoreboard how to go on

2006-12-15 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Jean-Frederic Clere wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to return the httpd-proxy-scoreboard to its first goal: A > replacement of the scoreboard by "normal" shared memory. > To reach this the experiments of health_checker should be removed or > changed to a provider of bytraffic/byrequest for mod_proxy

httpd-proxy-scoreboard how to go on

2006-12-15 Thread Jean-Frederic Clere
Hi, I would like to return the httpd-proxy-scoreboard to its first goal: A replacement of the scoreboard by "normal" shared memory. To reach this the experiments of health_checker should be removed or changed to a provider of bytraffic/byrequest for mod_proxy_balancer. Any comments? Cheers Jean

Re: Core vote [Re: mod_python 3.3.0 beta available for testing]

2006-12-15 Thread Jim Gallacher
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: I concur - my +1 was for a beta +1 for 3.3.0 beta Jim grisha On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, David Fraser wrote: I'm not "core" but I think its good practice to officially release this as a beta to the wider community before making it an actual release. I didn't

Re: Apache BUG: 36495 : ajp_proxy_connect_backend failure

2006-12-15 Thread Benjamin Cuthbert
I copied the proxy_util.c from trunk and put it in httpd-2.2.3/modules/proxy/ When i compiled i got Making install in proxy /apps/exlink/SOURCES/httpd-2.2.3/srclib/apr/libtool --silent --mode=compile gcc -DSSL_EXPERIMENTAL -DSSL_ENGINE -DSOLARIS2=10 -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -D_REENTRANT -