Re: svn commit: r1783912 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http2: h2_conn.c h2_mplx.c h2_mplx.h

> Am 21.02.2017 um 18:34 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:18 PM, wrote: >> >> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http2/h2_mplx.c >> URL: >>

Re: [RFC] ?

On Tue, 2017-02-21 at 21:58 +, Joe Orton wrote: > Any reason is a bad idea, so we can do that more cleanly > (... in a couple of decades time)? One reason it might be a very bad idea: user confusion! I'm thinking of the track record of here. Our support fora are full of users who have

Re: [RFC] ?

Am 21.02.2017 um 23:24 schrieb Eric Covener: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 21.02.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Joe Orton: For cases like HttpProtocolOptions where a new directive is introduced to multiple active branches simultaneously, it gets

Re: httpd 2.4.25, mpm_event, ssl: segfaults

On 02/19/2017 01:37 PM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Jacob Champion wrote: So, I had already hacked my O_DIRECT bucket case to just be a copy of APR's file bucket, minus the mmap() logic. I tried making this change on top of it... ...and holy crap, for regular HTTP it's

Re: [RFC] ?

On 02/21/2017 01:58 PM, Joe Orton wrote: Any reason is a bad idea, so we can do that more cleanly (... in a couple of decades time)? I like it! It would be really useful for running bisections... once we're far enough in the future, that is. I currently have to comment out portions of the

Re: [RFC] ?

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 21.02.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Joe Orton: >> >> For cases like HttpProtocolOptions where a new directive is introduced >> to multiple active branches simultaneously, it gets awkward to use >> to write conf files

Re: [RFC] ?

Am 21.02.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Joe Orton: For cases like HttpProtocolOptions where a new directive is introduced to multiple active branches simultaneously, it gets awkward to use to write conf files which use the new directive but are compatible across multiple versions. Triggered by a

Re: [RFC] ?

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Joe Orton wrote: > For cases like HttpProtocolOptions where a new directive is introduced > to multiple active branches simultaneously, it gets awkward to use > to write conf files which use the new directive but are > compatible across

[RFC] ?

For cases like HttpProtocolOptions where a new directive is introduced to multiple active branches simultaneously, it gets awkward to use to write conf files which use the new directive but are compatible across multiple versions. Triggered by a conversation with a user, but also e.g. see

Re: svn commit: r1783912 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http2: h2_conn.c h2_mplx.c h2_mplx.h

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:18 PM, wrote: > > Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http2/h2_mplx.c > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http2/h2_mplx.c?rev=1783912=1783911=1783912=diff >

Re: svn commit: r1783755 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > I think at this stage, let's get all changes/reverts into trunk. When that is > all done, we can talk about changes that I "expect" to work additionally. Reverted now (but the allocator mutex in

Re: svn commit: r1783755 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c

> Am 21.02.2017 um 14:54 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > We seem to be talking past each other, I'll _try_ to synchronize ourselves :) We'll get there! :) > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote: >> >> You have me confused now. If you did that all only for h2,

Re: svn commit: r1783755 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c

We seem to be talking past each other, I'll _try_ to synchronize ourselves :) On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > > You have me confused now. If you did that all only for h2, then, I > think, we can live without them all nowadays, because: Actually I made the MPMs change

Re: svn commit: r1783755 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c

> Am 21.02.2017 um 13:42 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Stefan Eissing >> wrote: >>> >>> 1+2, so the only allocator is from master

Re: svn commit: r1783755 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> On Feb 20, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >> >> >> >> On 02/20/2017 02:38 PM, yla...@apache.org wrote: >>> Author: ylavic >>> Date: Mon Feb 20 13:38:03 2017 >>> New Revision: 1783755 >>> >>>

Re: svn commit: r1783755 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/server/mpm/event/event.c

> On Feb 20, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > > On 02/20/2017 02:38 PM, yla...@apache.org wrote: >> Author: ylavic >> Date: Mon Feb 20 13:38:03 2017 >> New Revision: 1783755 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1783755=rev >> Log: >> mpm_event: use a

Re: svn commit: r1781575 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: build/PrintPath modules/ssl/mod_ssl.c modules/ssl/ssl_engine_config.c modules/ssl/ssl_engine_init.c modules/ssl/ssl_engine_ocsp.c modules/ssl/ssl_priv

On 02/20/2017 05:47 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> First you want it to be Off by default (i.e. verify the OCSP's >> responder certificate when not configured), right? >> Couldn't that break existing configurations since we

Re: release v1.9.0

Expect a v1.9.1 sometime this week. > Am 21.02.2017 um 09:40 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG > : > > Hi Yann, > > Am 20.02.2017 um 16:38 schrieb Yann Ylavic: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG >> wrote: >>> >>>