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):
>>>
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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,
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?
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo