Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-30 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 05/29/2017 10:52 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: >> >> Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 30 May 2017 07:13:41 >> +0200): >>> >>> Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 29 May 2017 15:42:46 +0200): >>>

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-30 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Steffen wrote: > > Btw. > Cmake is now Windows only, is that the goal ? No; however the autoconf works so well on such a broad assortment of Unix distributions that we haven't found a lot of motivation to fully instrument the cmake lists

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-30 Thread Jacob Champion
On 05/29/2017 10:52 PM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 30 May 2017 07:13:41 +0200): Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Mon, 29 May 2017 15:42:46 +0200): Cmake is now Windows only, is that the goal ? In what way is it Windows only? To answer my own

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-30 Thread Steffen
Still not working mod_proxy_http2 with larger responses. >>> Still wrong with >>> ProxyPass / h2c://127.0.0.1:80/ >>> ProxyPassReverse / http://127.0.0.1:80/ >>> Latest/former answer from Stefan was on this error was: >>> Thanks for testing. As I read your logs, the mod_proxy_http2 does not

r1792092 (Was: Re: The drive for 2.4.26)

2017-05-30 Thread Jim Jagielski
Eric just noted that one viable backport hasn't been proposed yet... Jean-Frederic, can you confirm that r1792092 is something you'd like to see in 2.4.x? Other than the field addition to the struct, the change looks v. self-contained.

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-30 Thread Steffen
Reminder: No mod_session_crypto with apr & apr-util 1.5 and Openssl 1.1.0. With not released apr & apr-util 1.6 all fine. > Op 30 mei 2017 om 14:57 heeft Jim Jagielski het volgende > geschreven: > > It looks like all the "easy and safe" backports have been > submitted and

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-30 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> It looks like all the "easy and safe" backports have been >> submitted and then committed. I am hesitant to stir things >> up anymore and think

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-30 Thread Stefan Eissing
I have one report of a CPU busy loop that seems to only happen on the last 3 changes in mod_http2. Steffen is currently testing if a feature disable solves the problem and thus points to the cause. I hope to hear from him tomorrow sometime during the day if that addresses the issue or not.

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-30 Thread Eric Covener
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > It looks like all the "easy and safe" backports have been > submitted and then committed. I am hesitant to stir things > up anymore and think that this week is our luck week for a > T of 2.4.26. > > Comments? Feedback? +1,

Re: The drive for 2.4.26

2017-05-30 Thread Jim Jagielski
It looks like all the "easy and safe" backports have been submitted and then committed. I am hesitant to stir things up anymore and think that this week is our luck week for a T of 2.4.26. Comments? Feedback?

Re: mod_substitute debugging

2017-05-30 Thread Nick Gearls
Patch uploaded: https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61132 On 30-05-2017 09:00, Nick Gearls wrote: Hi Ruediger, I understood that. My main question was "Which code do I include and release version and which one do I keep only for a debug build?" I have no problem to have everything

Re: mod_substitute debugging

2017-05-30 Thread Nick Gearls
Hi Ruediger, I understood that. My main question was "Which code do I include and release version and which one do I keep only for a debug build?" I have no problem to have everything included with a run-time check, I was just wondering if someone will not complain that this adds too much