2.2.x release on the horizon

Hi Steffen, we're about to kick off a 2.2.x release. Can you give Windows a sniff-test? Thanks, -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com

Re: 2.2 needs a reviewer for http strict backport ...

Thanks Yann! 2.2 running clean under test suite for me on Linux. On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > Halp? > > -- > Eric Covener > cove...@gmail.com -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com

Re: svn commit: r1777390 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS

> + wrowe asks: covener, would you apply? I'd like to have at least a second > + pair of hands and eyes on merging this to branches/2.2.x and > + am happy to compare/verify against my working copy. > + getting a start on it now

Re: A new release process?

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 12/29/2016 08:16 PM, David Zuelke wrote: >> >> The tl;dr of this approach is that >> >> - any x.y.z release only introduces bugfixes. These releases are done >> every four weeks, like clockwork. If a fix doesn't make

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 04 Jan 2017, at 8:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> Can you give us an example of this dead code? > > In modules/ alone (I haven't looked at server/ yet, and don't plan to today), > after ignoring build-related files and stripping the svn-diff context, there > are

2.2 needs a reviewer for http strict backport ...

Halp? -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

To your questions of history; On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > 3) mod_apreq2 > > 1000 lines, added in 2011, no meaningful code changes since addition, no > tests, no documented public release of libapreq2 since 2010. (It does have > public

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/04/2017 12:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code in trunk. Can you give us an example of this dead code? In modules/ alone (I haven't looked

Re: HTTP/2 frame prioritization not honored

Hi Stefan, Yes, this is making a big, obvservable difference! Specifically, in all 3 repeats, the high priority stream is now served 100ms after it was received, writing ~100 frames (~1.6MB) of currently served, lower-priority stream. (was: 500ms, 500frames(~7.5MB)) In more detail, after the

Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:22 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> This would work for me (on the proxy side), too. >> The patch (attached) is a bit longer, but still reasonable IMHO. >> WDYT? > > Not

Re: HTTP/2 frame prioritization not honored

Hi Kyriakos, sorry for not replying earlier. I could find the issue you ran into, namely that mod_http2 is obsessed with the streams it already has and does not submit ready responses - until the existing streams are done or pause. I hope that the new release works much more nicely for you.

Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > This would work for me (on the proxy side), too. > The patch (attached) is a bit longer, but still reasonable IMHO. > WDYT? Not understanding if (!header->key) { continue; } - why success if there is a dead ':

Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> I'm using a (third-party/closed) module which replaces newlines in >> header values (like base64 encoded PEMs) with obs-fold. >> That's

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/04/2017 12:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code in trunk. Can you give us an example of this dead code? I'm working to answer this question

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 01/04/2017 08:42 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: That’s not dead code, that’s just the difference between v2.4 and trunk. So long as the project chooses not to release it, it sits in a repository DoA. To a certain

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 04 Jan 2017, at 3:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > >>> Can you give us an example of this dead code? >> >> svn diff --ignore-properties --no-diff-deleted -x --ignore-all-space >>

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 04 Jan 2017, at 3:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> Can you give us an example of this dead code? > > svn diff --ignore-properties --no-diff-deleted -x --ignore-all-space > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/server >

Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:21 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> I'm using a (third-party/closed) module which replaces newlines in >> header values (like base64 encoded PEMs) with obs-fold. > > If we

Re: Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > I'm using a (third-party/closed) module which replaces newlines in > header values (like base64 encoded PEMs) with obs-fold. > That's probably obsolete, but not forbidden per se... Actually, it is, c.f. 3.2.4 of RFC 7230

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > >> I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code >> in trunk. > > Can you give us an example of this dead code? svn

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 3:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > > On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > >> I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code >> in trunk. > > Can you give us an example of this dead code?

Re: The Version Bump fallacy [Was Re: Post 2.4.25]

> On Jan 3, 2017, at 8:04 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 03/01/2017 23:11, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Back in the "old days" we used to provide complimentary builds >> for some OSs... I'm not saying we go back and do that necessarily, >> but maybe also providing easily

Could/Shouldn't check_header() allow folding?

I'm using a (third-party/closed) module which replaces newlines in header values (like base64 encoded PEMs) with obs-fold. That's probably obsolete, but not forbidden per se... How about something like: Index: modules/http/http_filters.c

Re: Automated tests

On 31 Dec 2016, at 4:58 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Thinking two things would help. > > Splitting our functional utilities into a libaputil would make it much easier > to write the tests that exercise these elements of our code. Definite +1. I want to see a C based

Re: [proposed] 2.4 Maintenance SIG

On 03 Jan 2017, at 10:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > I don't feel that trunk is a dead branch, but I do think there is dead code > in trunk. Can you give us an example of this dead code? Regards, Graham — smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature