Graham Leggett wrote:
On 15 May 2013, at 9:23 PM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Now we have:
t/apache/pr17629.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 4
Looking at a verbose version of this test, we see this:
# expected: begin-foobar-end
# received: !DOCTYPE
On 17 May 2013, at 10:26, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
We should not see an EOS bucket before
inflate(ctx-stream, Z_NO_FLUSH); in line 1061 returned Z_STREAM_END. This
would mean we received an incomplete
compressed stream.
And if we see Z_STREAM_END we leave the for loop and
Sorry to interfere in the debate with a non-RFC argument but there may be
aftermath by changing a long standing mod_proxy 502 error for almost any
non-recoverable problem with the upstream server.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Arbitrarily changing a 502
Hi all,
I will revert the changes done with:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1332643
after 72 hours if nobody is going to fix the stuff properly for Windows
since I'm tired of always copying mod_ssl over from 2.4.x branch in
order to get a working mod_ssl with trunk.
I am currently working in frontporting some patches I use for a while
in the 2.2.x branch and I'd like to propose for trunk (at least, my
goal is to upgrade to 2.4 of course).
The reason I talk about this in this thread is that 2 of these patches
may collide with your current work/review on
Please don't submit what could be controversial reverts
over a weekend.
On May 17, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all,
I will revert the changes done with:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1332643
after 72 hours if nobody is going to fix the
