On 1/22/2012 10:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/22/2012 5:12 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> On Friday 20 January 2012, Joe Orton wrote:
>>>
>>> Good catch on ctx->bytes_in. I'd add: why is
>>> core_output_filter_ctx_t in a public header?
>>
>> There is no good reason other than that other co
On 1/22/2012 5:12 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Friday 20 January 2012, Joe Orton wrote:
>>
>> Good catch on ctx->bytes_in. I'd add: why is
>> core_output_filter_ctx_t in a public header?
>
> There is no good reason other than that other core filter structs like
> core_filter_ctx and core_net_re
On 1/21/2012 10:29 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.c
>> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server/util_expr_parse.h
>
> IMHO the next two files are auto-generated and the copyright notice is added
> by bison. So
> no need to overwrite it every time we
On 1/22/2012 9:20 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Seems to me that there's enough to warrant a 2.2.22 release...
> As long as we're doing a 2.4.1, why not also provide a 2.2.22
> at the same time?
Because, 2.4.x is a distraction to shipping 2.2.22. You are
welcome to do a 2.4.x, although I will vote a
On 1/22/2012 5:25 PM, Tim Bannister wrote:
>
> If this triggers a long, unhappy discussion then I would regret posting. On
> the other hand, if Stefan's question leads to a better experience for httpd
> users, that's really great.
+1
On 1/22/2012 12:14 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> Apart from the fact that the docs to Include do not match the code and
> IncludeOptional is not documented at all, the way Include interacts
> with directory wildcards is a bit strange:
>
> I have conf/extra/httpd-userdir.conf and a directory conf/o
On 22 Jan 2012, at 18:14, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> I have conf/extra/httpd-userdir.conf and a directory conf/original (without
> httpd-userdir.conf in it). This makes
>
> Include conf/*/httpd-userdir.conf
>
> fail
…
> even though the whole Include statement does match one file. I think this
> m
On Sunday 22 January 2012, Eric Covener wrote:
> > even though the whole Include statement does match one file. I
> > think this makes directory wildcards a lot less useful with
> > Include. Is this intentional or an implementation quirk? Of
> > course, one can always use IncludeOptional...
>
> Se
On Sunday 22 January 2012, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> I think that your patch is correct. However, as an optimization,
> one could try reading the morphing bucket until there are
> THRESHOLD_MAX_BUFFER bytes in memory. If all morphing buckets in
> the brigade disappear before reaching that limit, on
On 1/22/2012 5:12 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Friday 20 January 2012, Joe Orton wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:04:30PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>>> This is a bigger problem. With the attached patch, the core
>>> output filter will flush data to the client when it has read
>>> more than
> even though the whole Include statement does match one file. I think
> this makes directory wildcards a lot less useful with Include. Is this
> intentional or an implementation quirk? Of course, one can always use
> IncludeOptional...
>
See this relevant thread:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/
Apart from the fact that the docs to Include do not match the code and
IncludeOptional is not documented at all, the way Include interacts
with directory wildcards is a bit strange:
I have conf/extra/httpd-userdir.conf and a directory conf/original
(without httpd-userdir.conf in it). This makes
On 22 Jan 2012, at 5:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Seems to me that there's enough to warrant a 2.2.22 release...
> As long as we're doing a 2.4.1, why not also provide a 2.2.22
> at the same time?
>
> I offer to RM this as well, with the hopes of releasing both
> by the end of the week.
>
> Com
Seems to me that there's enough to warrant a 2.2.22 release...
As long as we're doing a 2.4.1, why not also provide a 2.2.22
at the same time?
I offer to RM this as well, with the hopes of releasing both
by the end of the week.
Comments?
I am rescinding the vote for 2.4.0. Instead, on Monday (or
Tuesday at the latest) I will T&R 2.4.1.
I will keep these test tarballs around so that Windows
users have access to them in case any win users or devs
have the time or talents to address the open issues.
On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jim
How goes work on these Windows bugs??
On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
> On 1/20/2012 10:36 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 1/20/2012 7:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Just a friendly reminder... If reports have been submitted
>>> to BUGZ, could you list them in this thread
On Friday 20 January 2012, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:04:30PM +0100, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> > This is a bigger problem. With the attached patch, the core
> > output filter will flush data to the client when it has read
> > more than 64K from the cgi bucket. Then it will setaside
17 matches
Mail list logo
