Re: mod_lets-encrypt

2017-01-10 Thread Jacob Champion
On 01/10/2017 08:35 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: Before I send someone into the woods - did anyone consider/do a quick ‘mod_lets_encrypt’ (with or without a persistent store) — that requires virtually no configuration ? Considered? Yes. Back in August there was some discussion on this list

mod_lets-encrypt

2017-01-10 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik
Before I send someone into the woods - did anyone consider/do a quick ‘mod_lets_encrypt’ (with or without a persistent store) — that requires virtually no configuration ? Or is the web world still thinking unix with clear small concise scripts that do one thing well ? Dw

Re: svn commit: r1776285 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_wstunnel.c

2017-01-10 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > On 12/28/2016 03:40 PM, cove...@apache.org wrote: >> Author: covener >> Date: Wed Dec 28 14:40:54 2016 >> New Revision: 1776285 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1776285=rev >> Log: >> improve a debug

Re: svn commit: r1776575 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: docs/log-message-tags/next-number docs/manual/mod/mod_remoteip.xml modules/metadata/mod_remoteip.c

2017-01-10 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 12/30/2016 03:20 PM, drugg...@apache.org wrote: > Author: druggeri > Date: Fri Dec 30 14:20:48 2016 > New Revision: 1776575 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1776575=rev > Log: > Merge new PROXY protocol code into mod_remoteip > > Modified: >

Re: svn commit: r1776285 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_wstunnel.c

2017-01-10 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 12/28/2016 03:40 PM, cove...@apache.org wrote: > Author: covener > Date: Wed Dec 28 14:40:54 2016 > New Revision: 1776285 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1776285=rev > Log: > improve a debug message > > > Modified: > httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_wstunnel.c > >

Re: svn commit: r1777998 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS

2017-01-10 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:33 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > As this seems (once applied to 2.4) to be an accepted part of the overall > patch, > Yann you might want to add this to the merge/backport patch branches as part > of our overall, recommended patches against