Re: AuthzMergeRules directive

Brad Nicholes wrote: This is where it starts to go wrong for me. Where it gets confusing for somebody who is trying to figure out what the configuration is doing is: Require ip 10.10.0.1 Require ldap-group sales Require ldap-group ne-sales Requi

Re: flood random subst patch

Thanks! Guy On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 14:27 +0200, Vincent van Scherpenseel wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > For those unaware, there are new "flood" and "framework" components > > of the "httpd-test" bugzilla product. > > Excellent :) I'm glad flood is regaining attention. It's a great tool

Re: AuthzMergeRules directive

>>> On 4/14/2008 at 12:21 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brad Nicholes wrote: > >> I'm not real excited about adding a new authz directive. Authn and >> authz are already very complex and adding a new directive to the mix will >> just help to confus

Re: AuthzMergeRules directive

Brad Nicholes wrote: I'm not real excited about adding a new authz directive. Authn and authz are already very complex and adding a new directive to the mix will just help to confuse people even more. That's a good point. Mostly the idea of an Accept replacement for Require came up as a wa

Re: Solaris sed based apache filtering module (mod_sed)

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:27:40AM -0700, Chris Elving wrote: > Basant Kukreja wrote: >> +static void sed_write(sed_eval_t *eval, char *buf, int sz) >> +{ >> +if (eval->curoutbuf + sz >= eval->outbend) { >> +// flush current buffer >> +sed_flush_output_buffer(eval, buf, sz); >>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 12:46:43PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me > if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance > of a schedule than not, and by baselining every X months for a release, > it provides us, as volunteers

Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases

I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance of a schedule than not, and by baselining every X months for a release, it provides us, as volunteers, to better allocate time. It does not mean, imo, that we rush out pac

Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Brad Nicholes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Montag, 14. April 2008 17:44 > An: dev@httpd.apache.org > Betreff: Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases > > >>> On 4/12/2008 at 11:20 AM, in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul > Querna <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases

>>> On 4/12/2008 at 11:20 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and discussed > with a few other http server people before. > > I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based releas

Re: [Fwd: Re: more importuning about the flood patch]

OK, I'll get a new checkout and build a patch that won't complain. Thanks! Guy On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 15:21 +0200, Oden Eriksson wrote: > Den Monday 14 April 2008 15.15.22 skrev Vincent van Scherpenseel: > > Oden Eriksson wrote: > > > Does not build for me (r64) on Mandriva Linux 2008.1 (x86_

Re: 2.2.9 (Was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases)

On Apr 14, 2008, at 10:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Apr 14, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Jess Holle wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Plus, every 3 months would coincide with the report-to-board cycle, making it easier for everyone to follow :) Next is due in May, so if we release this month, then we can f

Re: 2.2.9 (Was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases)

On Apr 14, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Jess Holle wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote: Plus, every 3 months would coincide with the report-to-board cycle, making it easier for everyone to follow :) Next is due in May, so if we release this month, then we can follow a "Release before the board report" or else "Re

Re: 2.2.9 (Was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases)

Jim Jagielski wrote: Plus, every 3 months would coincide with the report-to-board cycle, making it easier for everyone to follow :) Next is due in May, so if we release this month, then we can follow a "Release before the board report" or else "Release at board report" cycle (with the caveat I no

2.2.9 (Was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases)

On Apr 13, 2008, at 3:32 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a release of the main stable branch, which at this time is 2.2.x. I would like to go for 3 month, so four times per ye

Re: [Fwd: Re: more importuning about the flood patch]

Den Monday 14 April 2008 15.15.22 skrev Vincent van Scherpenseel: > Oden Eriksson wrote: > > Does not build for me (r64) on Mandriva Linux 2008.1 (x86_64): > > > > Do you happen to compile flood using GCC 4.x? I couldn't compile flood > > with Guy's patch using GCC 4.1, particularly due to th

Re: [PROPOSAL] Time Based Releases

On Apr 12, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Paul Querna wrote: This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and discussed with a few other http server people before. I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based releases. My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a releas

Re: [Fwd: Re: more importuning about the flood patch]

Oden Eriksson wrote: Does not build for me (r64) on Mandriva Linux 2008.1 (x86_64): > Do you happen to compile flood using GCC 4.x? I couldn't compile flood with Guy's patch using GCC 4.1, particularly due to these two errors: > flood_round_robin.c:910: error: lvalue required as left

Re: flood random subst patch

Vincent van Scherpenseel wrote: Excellent :) I'm glad flood is regaining attention. It's a great tool and I find it a pity that the project isn't that active anymore. The site could use a little updating too: I get 404s for every svn.apache.org/... link. Also, I believe there's no link back t

Re: [Fwd: Re: more importuning about the flood patch]

Den Monday 14 April 2008 12.32.25 skrev William A. Rowe, Jr.: > Confirming; this is the patch? > > Bill Does not build for me (r64) on Mandriva Linux 2008.1 (x86_64): /bin/sh /usr/lib64/apr-1/build/libtool --silent --mode=compile gcc-O2 -g -pipe -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fsta

rebase your current flood/framework checkouts!

for those with a flood checkout, from it's root you must svn switch https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/flood/trunk and for a perl framework checkout, it's svn switch https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/test/framework/trunk and for specweb99, it's svn switch https://svn.apache.org/

Re: flood random subst patch

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: For those unaware, there are new "flood" and "framework" components of the "httpd-test" bugzilla product. Excellent :) I'm glad flood is regaining attention. It's a great tool and I find it a pity that the project isn't that active anymore. The site could use a lit

Re: flood random subst patch

For those unaware, there are new "flood" and "framework" components of the "httpd-test" bugzilla product.

Re: Ship 1.3.0 apr in httpd 2.2.9

Plüm wrote: It has not be the right way for long and the fixes that need to be done are small. So I see no issue here having this done in 2.2.9 with apr 1.2.x. We can align it with trunk 2.2.10 or later. fair enough * users looking at the mmn expect a certain baseline; explaining why

Re: Ship 1.3.0 apr in httpd 2.2.9

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: William A. Rowe, Jr. > Gesendet: Montag, 14. April 2008 12:49 > An: dev@httpd.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Ship 1.3.0 apr in httpd 2.2.9 > > Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > > here is my idea: > > > > Ship 1.3.0 with httpd 2.2.x, but do *not* make httpd >

Re: Ship 1.3.0 apr in httpd 2.2.9

Ruediger Pluem wrote: here is my idea: Ship 1.3.0 with httpd 2.2.x, but do *not* make httpd dependent on 1.3.x now. Wait for this until 1.3.x has settled a bit more and things like the ones Nick mentioned are fixed. I'm not entirely keen on this idea; the reasons being * we want to pick up

[Fwd: Re: more importuning about the flood patch]

Confirming; this is the patch? Bill --- Begin Message --- No problem! On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 12:59 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Guy Ferraiolo wrote: > > Folks > > > > I think flood is highly useful once the random substitution feature is > > added. If we got that into the code base ther

Re: flood random subst patch

Guy Ferraiolo wrote: Folks Again, if there's anything I can do to help this along, please let me know. Pointer to the now-current patch after all of the recent discussion would help - I'm happy to commit this today.

Re: Apache 3.0

Paul Querna wrote: For those who were not there, slides from Roy's keynote at ApacheCon EU: I came away with one question... if you read the slides you should understand Roy as pointing out the relative peaks and valleys in traffic, co