Re: [VOTE] Release Apache HTTP server 2.2.10

2008-10-10 Thread Paul Querna
Jim Jagielski wrote: Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll close the vote on Tues AM. I've upgraded eos.apache.org and aurora.apache.org to 2.2.10, which are

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache HTTP server 2.2.10

2008-10-10 Thread Eric Covener
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd > like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to > release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll > close the vote on Tues AM. > +1 for relea

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache HTTP server 2.2.10

2008-10-10 Thread Jorge Schrauwen
Running stable in a production environment here. Haven't notice any problems +1 Jorge

Re: Speeding up mod_proxy_balancer on Windows

2008-10-10 Thread Jess Holle
Jess Holle wrote: Ruediger Pluem wrote: Did you check whether the currently running thread "proxy_ajp connect timeout fix." (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200810.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] and http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200810.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]) d

bug in modssl

2008-10-10 Thread Peter Sylvester
Hello, I have just reported a bug in modssl which was already reported earlier here in more details. https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45107 Thanks in advance for considering the proposed patch. Peter Sylvester smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: load balancer workers

2008-10-10 Thread Vinicius Petrucci
thanks you all for the feedback. I will give a try on these alternatives... :) best, Vinicius

Re: PR45605 and event MPM

2008-10-10 Thread Greg Ames
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Greg Ames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I will take a look at the APR atomics and see if the operations that > Event's fdqueue is using are less supported than the atomics used in > worker. > No difference in support on ia32 + gcc; both worker and event use two

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache HTTP server 2.2.10

2008-10-10 Thread Tony Stevenson
On Fri, October 10, 2008 3:36 pm, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd > like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to release on > Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll > close the vote on Tues AM. > After all my positive testing, t

[VOTE] Release Apache HTTP server 2.2.10

2008-10-10 Thread Jim Jagielski
Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll close the vote on Tues AM.

Re: PR45605 and event MPM

2008-10-10 Thread Greg Ames
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anybody see problems with this or are we still too worried about > the correct handling of signed vs. unsigned variables by apr_atomic_ > to use this in a non experimental MPM? signed vs unsigned doesn't bother

Re: PR45605 and event MPM

2008-10-10 Thread Jim Jagielski
On Oct 9, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Greg Ames wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am currently looking at PR45605 (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45605 ) and the analysis and the resulting patch in Comment 4 look good to me (https