On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:30:30AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I propose mod_domain to match the IANA port number
assignment.
+1, especially since that way we don't have to listen to Paul Vixie ;)
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 03:38:38PM +0700, Niko Wilfritz Sianipar Sianipar wrote:
Can I use tcp_get_info() function from Linux C library in my Apache code to
get information about the TCP connection?
Yep, you can, though obviously it will be completely unportable.
I need it to estimate the
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:39:14PM +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
Have a look at the ntp protocol - it is fairly effective at this -
and I would not rule out that you'd be able to do something similar
(abeit less accurate) on a keep-alive connection.
NTP does it via phase-lock loop,
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:49:43PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 1:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly quite
different caching strategies when it comes to storing the headers ?
E.g. the
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:10:23PM +0100, Nick Gearls wrote:
You specify one directive, and the only thing you have to put in the
jail is your htdocs and logs directories; all other files (conf,
modules, httpd, libraries, etc.) are outside of the jail. This is really
top security - it's
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 12:03:02PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
Most of us seem to have convinced our self that high performance network
applications (including web servers) must be asynchronous in order to scale.
Is this still valid? For that matter, was it ever?
Hmmm, it depends what you mean
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 04:17:16PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
For dynamic stuff, X-sendfile works well. (Just really starting to play
with that, liking it so far).
It's not a solve-all though, I mean even though CGI's or whatever
/could/ write their output to a file and then call X-sendfile,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:31:11PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
On 1/18/08 2:20 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think so, in some environments anyway. If you have a server tuned for
high throughput accross large bandwidth-delay product links then you
have the general
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 01:52:02PM -0500, Akins, Brian wrote:
On 1/18/08 12:18 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, it depends what you mean by scale really. Async doesn't help a
daemon scale in terms of concurrency or throughput, if anything it might
even impede
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:22:37PM +, Andrew Beverley wrote:
I am currently working within the UK Ministry of Defence, and am trying to get
Apache web server accredited as software able to be installed on one of our
defence networks. However, one of the barriers I am coming up against is
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 04:00:48PM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
Short: We need to call ap_close_listeners() earlier or more aggressively.
Question: Where/How?
Looking at the Event MPM in both trunk and 2.2.x, the listener_thread is
where we call ap_close_listeners(). This does not seem to be
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 05:09:08PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Hmmm... seems that - even though we've *repeated* this multiple times,
we have to state this again. Contents of http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
are *development* tarballs and not for any distribution.
It's called dist,
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 11:49:10AM +0200, Steffen wrote:
Correct me if I wrong, but sometimes I have the feeling that ASF and/or
Covalent Technologies are not happy with the Apache Lounge.
You're wrong in that the ASF (and probably Covalent) are groups of
people that don't act with a single
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 06:31:01PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
* does it correspond to the tag?
* is it correctly licensed?
* is it correctly packaged?
* are any additions that appear to have IP encumbrances?
* does it build?
* does it run?
* does it pass the perl-framework
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 09:46:50PM -0400, Tom Donovan wrote:
Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us that the
Apache2 license protects released versions of Apache differently.
It doesn't.
My (possibly faulty) understanding was that the whole Redistribution
and
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 12:16:03PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Like I said, as long as ApacheLounge makes clear that the versions it
carries are not ASF releases, it's certainly permitted by the license
and not the least bit out of the ordinary.
That's the point
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 02:40:39PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The bottom line is that nobody took issue with Jeff's or my comments. They
are free to do so. Colm has this time around. His points don't quite jive,
if you offered a patch set and said hey, this is the difference between
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 03:05:14PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
You specifically mentioned how many distros have patched sources, and
that's true (and not an issue). What I asked was, are there distros which
ship our release candidates before they are released, and if so, are they
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:51:34PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 09:29:25PM -, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Secondly: I think this approach is unnecessarily complex. I think it's
sufficient to simply check whether the target process is in the right
process group before sending
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:05:26AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
- if (ap_scoreboard_image-servers[n].status != SERVER_DEAD
- kill((pid = ap_scoreboard_image-parent[n].pid), 0) == -1) {
- ap_update_child_status(n, SERVER_DEAD, NULL);
- /* just mark it as having a
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:50:09AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Should we get rid of it from the table here? Can we get away without
removing stale pids in general? What if they are recycled by the OS
for something else?
No, that's a good point. We should likely remove the
pid from our
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 06:39:48PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So I brought up to the list 'fixing' this with an additional meta
character to follow | that would distinguish sh from non-sh invocations,
and permit both.
Wouldn't | exec logger work?
--
Colm MacCárthaigh
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:05:30AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
External links are encouraged where they add substantial value, but
you may not link to your own pages or otherwise seek private benefits
from external links.
I like the elegance of this rule, because if it's your page and you
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 06:47:49PM -0500, Webmaster wrote:
Say whatever you want, I'm not going to argue when the evidence is online
for everyone to examine. Go look at the wiki at my posting history, you
will see how unfairly I have been treated.
I've done just that today, never having
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 01:32:44PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
steve wrote:
On 2/27/07, Arnold Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick already told you, that Apache allows you to choose. So simply use
the fast-cgi/mpm-event combo, if you like that best. And if you want to
evangelize the
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:05:08AM +0800, howard chen wrote:
1. single-threaded, event-based, (powered by epoll)
httpd supports epoll() and event-based polling to the extent that the
system-call chains for handling a request by Apache httpd and lighttpd
are near-identical, it's hard to tell them
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:57:27PM -0500, Brian Akins wrote:
Would be nice if we could do HTTP over unix domain sockets, for example.
No need for full TCP stack just to pass things back and forth between
Apache and back-end processes.
Or over standard input, so that we can have an admin
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:28:49PM -0500, Victor J. Orlikowski wrote:
I've been getting some questions (from my new employer) on the
impact of the upcoming Daylight Saving Time issues for the httpd.
My natural response was: There are none! It's an OS issue.
Whatever about DST, this reminds
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:43:49PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
* The Apache HTTP Server project believes that most people who want to
avoid sending the Server header mistakenly think that doing so may
protect their server from attacks based on known flaws in older Apache
HTTPD releases, when in
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 12:45:39PM +0300, Issac Goldstand wrote:
Forgive me for missing the obvious, but why not just use mod_file_cache
for this?
I recall you mentioning that your use of mod_cache was for locally
caching very large remote files, so don't see how this would help that
in
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:59:02PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
The whole idea of passing *sockets* (instead of requests) between
processes only works on very few systems, ie. Linux, BSD and
perhaps some others. So the whole portability issue is useless -
those MPMs only work some Unix'es,
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 09:20:52AM -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
We tested a Sun t2000 with httpd 2.2. It did okay. Now, Sun says
there is an issue with 2.2 and portfs on Solaris 10 on the t2000.
It didn't do very well for me with Solaris 10 either.
Not real sure what this means. Anyone else
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 12:26:23PM -0700, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Pretty darned quiet - either it's summer or nobody feels like
joining the fray when Roy and Will go at it?
Well, Paul's talk in San Diego got me thinking. We're not really just
about HTTP any more, it's a misnomer. We're
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:22:03PM -0400, Guy Hulbert wrote:
The simple solution is to buy a bigger piece of hardware or outsource
the problem to the relevent experts.
Trying to do meaningful load-balancing within an application will not be
simple. At the router it is simple. All the
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 01:20:51PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Well, the docs project consensus is wrong. Our main product is httpd
(one of several products) and our project is Apache HTTP Server Project.
Our announcements say ``Apache HTTP Server (Apache)'', I'd prefer if
we used that as
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 04:25:41AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* configure.in: Add --with-included-apr flag to force use of the
bundled copies of APR and APR-util.
Any desire to have a consistent syntax? --with-expat=builtin happens
to be that
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 01:09:19PM +0200, Trent Nelson wrote:
1. Download and install latest Win32 2.2.2 Apache binary.
o.k., well that's a bad start, but I can handle building an Apache
binary :-)
2. Download .netCHARTING 4.0 evaluation version for .NET 1.1 from
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 11:58:01AM -0300, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Also, with this patch it is possible to designate directories to separate
partitions because the temporary files are created on the destination
directory.
I'm not sure it goes far enough though. What if an admin has two
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:16:26PM -0300, Davi Arnaut wrote:
I'm not sure it goes far enough though. What if an admin has two
filesystems/disks they can to store the cache on, or what if it's 7?
CacheDirLevels n 256 for n = 1,2,...,7,...
Ahh, now I get it, cool.
What if one is a 160GB
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 11:11:53AM +0300, Eli Marmor wrote:
Thanks to your great efforts, there are exciting new features in the
trunk, and it would be great to bring them to the masses...
Don't expect new features in trunk to form the part of any 2.2.3
release. For the most part, they will
On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 01:21:12PM -0400, WDaquell wrote:
So, the whole mod is just going to die?
It's not like the source will cease to exist or become impossible to
maintain. If no developers can be convinced to volunteer their time and
effort on the maintainence part, then you can always pay
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:47:15AM -0500, Jess Holle wrote:
So what's the story with IPv6 on Windows?
Works fine in every version of windows since 2000, although 2000 itself
needs a kit and patching installed.
Are there some versions of Windows which always support it, but the
headers we use
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 08:12:41PM +0200, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Indeed i can't get mine to bind on IPv6 aswel... strange since i was sure i
had it listening on IPv6!
I get a
[Wed Jul 12 20:10:16 2006] [crit] (OS 11004)The requested name is valid, but
no data of the requeste
d type was
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 10:25:27PM +0200, Mathieu CARBONNEAUX wrote:
but using strace directly by attaching to processus can be risky in
production (like gdb!)... and with apache with 256 or 512 processuss
all working can be hard to debug...
*shrug*, I regulary attach tracers to apache with
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 12:03:57AM +0200, Alexander Lazic wrote:
Sorry for that, which list is the right one from your point of view?
dev@apr.apache.org :-)
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:11:38PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 10:51:55AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: colm
Date: Tue Jun 13 03:51:54 2006
New Revision: 413861
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=413861view=rev
Log:
A keepalive response need not
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:29:06PM +0200, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF EITO wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Joe Orton [
Would only committers count as participating in the project
for this
purpose, do you think? Random people submitting patches would not?
Stupid question: How
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 08:16:48AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The group of people who concern me are not those in T-8, they are those who
live in jurisdictions where *they* would be breaking local law by possessing
crypto. Leave them a) in the backwaters / b) in fear / c) in violation,
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:01:16PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
What's next, do we start stripping patented methods from our tarball
and making that available too?
Uhm which patent *encumbered* methods?
If I were to identify any or perform a patent search
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:16:02PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Suffice it to say that even a cursory glance at a patents register
would likely reveal many ludicrous patents which httpd may infringe.
Yup; if the claimant to any such -legitimate- patent comes
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:07:51AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 6/8/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are quite a few reasonable alternative strategies for dealing with
that kind of scenario. Does the ASF have such a policy as a matter of
course, regardless
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 02:47:59PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
If anyone can think of another option, I'd like to hear it before
proposing a vote.
Another option is that we could ask the ASF to formally consider upping
roots and changing jurisdiction. I have little doubt over what the
answer
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 01:03:48PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
c) each redistributor (re-exporter) of our packages must do the same
[I am unsure if that means every mirror is supposed to file as
well, but for now I am guessing that they don't];
They don't :)
e) people who are in
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 03:53:51PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Before we take -any- action, we need to have one policy across the ASF.
*shrug*, this is [EMAIL PROTECTED], so I'm going to stick to httpd specifically
for now, and that can feed in or not to any policy the ASF desires to
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:03:33PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The point is that they may want to download a web server which doesn't
have that problem, and right now they are limited to 1.3.x. I consider
Web servers to be something we would want people in those countries
to be able to
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:51:12PM -0700, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
Here's the page that I've put together right now:
http://apache.org/dev/crypto.html. Unfortunately, it needs a little
more detail.
Thank you very much, that's already answered a few of my questions and
given me some good
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 04:02:01PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
we would have to provide our own copy of the distribution or include
the source code directly in our product, just to comply with EAR.
My preference is to not distribute OpenSSL.
+1
--
Colm MacCárthaigh
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 04:32:40PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
We also cannot go to one of those countries and agitate for people
to download a copy of httpd and run their own web server
Who's we? Members of the ASF? Members of the PMC? committers?
developers?
I'd like to know. My Apache
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 06:58:27PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
We is anyone representing the ASF. How (or who) would determine
that is anyone's guess.
eek. Who is burdened with that liability? I'm guessing it's the ASF as a
body corporate and possibly its directors personally.
If that's the
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 10:32:04AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rv = apr_file_rename(dobj-tempfile, dobj-datafile, r-pool);
if (rv != APR_SUCCESS) {
-/* XXX log */
+ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_DEBUG, rv, r-server,
+
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 11:38:53AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
What I'm saying is that there is a BIG difference between actively
*supported* and actively *developed*. As far as I'm concerned, we
still support 1.3.x, for our huge install base of legacy users.
What does support mean in this
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 04:01:50PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
+#if APR_HAVE_UNISTD_H
+#include unistd.h
+#endif
+
We might need io.h on win32, but we can easily figure that out :)
+#define OOM_MESSAGE [crit] Memory allocation failed, aborting process.\n
APR_EOL_STR instead of \n, but apart
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:11:27AM -0700, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 5/10/06, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:53:50AM -0700, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I would personally prefer abort to exit...
is write()'ing a static error message an option too?
Perhaps
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:22:25AM -0700, Garrett Rooney wrote:
Which is likely to be redirected to /dev/null in most cases...
We redirect standard error to the main error log :) See ap_open_logs in
server/log.c :-) httpd -E also causes stderr redirection for the
start-up phase, /dev/null is
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:45:20AM +0530, Mendonce, Kiran (STSD) wrote:
If I use TCP socket instead of the default unix doman socket for the
Scriptsock directive,
How are you doing that? Are you hacking the source?
before httpd can send it all of the data. But the CGI process has sent
out
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 06:19:59AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Question: what other side-effects might this have?
unpredictable if somebody/something sends AP_SIG_GRACEFUL to the child
process; it will land on random worker thread
(it might be nice for debugging if you could make processes
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:12:58AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
That is an unexpected and unwelcome regression.
Yep, my bad, I never had such a block in my testing largely because I
didn't even know 1.3.x had that feature, *sigh*, it's not even
documented and I can't see it in a changelog and it
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 03:45:21PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Yep, my bad, I never had such a block in my testing largely because I
didn't even know 1.3.x had that feature, *sigh*, it's not even
documented and I can't see it in a changelog and it didn't have that
functionality when I
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 11:20:14PM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
Looks right for ap_init_scoreboard, and there's nothing else relevant
in scoreboard.c. A quick grep suggests it's globally right, so +1.
Same here, afaict the patch gets it right.
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:36:54PM -0400, Chris Darroch wrote:
This may not be necessary, but I notice that prefork and most of
the other MPMs set ap_my_generation to an initial value of zero.
The worker and event MPMs don't, though.
Yes, we don't have any consistency in the actual code
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:43:05AM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
I think we have three releasable tarballs on our hands. Let's throw
them over the wall.
2.0.58 has already hit the mirrors, I'll update the website with
announcements once Paul has mailed the 2.2.2 announcements. That seems
closest
On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 11:20:59PM -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
It looks like the 2.2.2 RC is the closest to being ready for release,
with the 72 hour window on www.a.o running out Monday night Pacific.
However, I would like to urge holding back the release until the
branches can catch up.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:35:23PM -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
Download from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1, and in production on ftp.heanet.ie for a day now with no problems.
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:15:01AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
-1, there's been enough back and forth on this. The current status is
that the existing candidate is good for release unless people start
reverting their +1's, which so far - has not happened.
As I have stated before, I
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 05:40:45PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
If you feel that strongly about it, veto the code change, and I'll tag
and roll 2.0.58.
O.k., this is coming anyway :)
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:55:37PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Please test and vote on releasing Apache httpd 1.3.35
+1, tested on Solaris Sparc and Ubuntu x64
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
O.k., for the last time, hopefully :) A candidate for 2.0.58 is
available for testing and voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
The MD5sums are;
ac732a8b3ec5760baa582888f5dbad66 httpd-2.0.58.tar.bz2
a03eeefee78c01ec24c8671380763860 httpd-2.0.58.tar.gz
The code is identical
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:49:29PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
What I'd like to propose is 1) wait for the unified announce on Wed night,
2) cease pushing out any 1.3 or 2.0 specific product announcements.
Whatever way we end up cutting this, can we agree to at least let
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:31:25PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Appears to be Colm's choice of 1. nothing extra, 2. revert date
changes/reroll, or 3. revert date changes (w/ any other changes he
wishes), bump and reroll. That's my preference, in descending order,
but support whichever
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I'm -1 due to the copyright notice changes. A bunch of files
magically added years to copyright notices (i.e. from -2004 to -2006)
when those files didn't actually substantively change during that
period. That's a no-no.
We
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:39:12PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I don't concur with Colm, the tarball is the release and changing the legal
text is more significant, perhaps, than even the code itself. So it's yet
another bump that strikes me as silly.
Just to be clear, I didn't mean it
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 12:51:19PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
It matters that we've now said on a public list that we know the
notices are incorrect. Before, we actually believed that those
changes were right. That's a huge difference. -- justin
You've
we have appropriately
appropriated) and the files on which no copyright is claimed (e.g.
apr/ examples public domain.)
A line such as Copyright Colm MacCarthaigh gives me no protection
copyright didn't already afford me in the absense of that line. The only
thing it does do is serve as a courtesy
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:34:34PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
In any case, it requires great care -- you actually changed at least
one (maybe more) copyright lines belonging to other people, which is
somewhat illegal. I really like all the energy you have going right
now, but we can't do a
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:09:35AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
AFAICT, sources are -all- still copyright 2005. That's not right.
The 1.3 branch is 2004, and it had a 2005 release ;)
Even if we determine we'll -quit- updating the copyrights until they
are modified, we need to update
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:19:39AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Whoa - that's not correct(!) Although the details are tricky, and although
copyright no longer requires 'registration' of the copyrighted material, you
still must claim it or lose it, afaik. (IANAL)
Nope, not in any
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:42:29AM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
and autofixes them on commit? Is that doable?
I never thought of that, it probably is, I'll take a look.
This can be made work, but we'd have to give a bot karma on the whole
httpd tree.
Alternately, if svn can dump us
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 11:06:56AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
+1 on merging to trunk, +0 on 2.2.x. I'd love to see someone actually
using it for something real before it goes into any release, and at
this point I'm not sure it has...
Hence my desire to get it into a branch that people
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 08:31:25AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/19/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before I t/r 1.3, I'll be updating the files to reflect the
new copyright. We can determine some better way of doing it
post-release :)
No. Please do not update any
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which is a
potential open issue.
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since there's little sense in not including the Expect header fix, I'll
roll 2.0.57 in 24 hours with that fix in, and potentially a mod_deflate
fix too.
Also, what are people's thoughts on including sha1 signatures in our
official dist? We havn't heretofore, is there any benefit? The PGP
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 06:44:11PM +1000, John Vandenberg wrote:
A cool project that appears to needs a coder is mod_bittorrent.
There's already a mod_bittorrent, but it only produces .torrent files
dynamically, it doesn't act as as a seed or participate in the p2p.
There's mod_torrent too
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:09:12AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 4/15/06, Brandon Fosdick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might have asked this before, but I've forgotten the answer, and so has
google. Has any of the large file goodness from 2.2.x made it into 2.0.x?
Will it ever?
Different
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 12:34:29PM -0400, Rian A Hunter wrote:
I think a SoC project that profiles Apache (and finds out where we
fall short) so that we are able to compete with other lightweight HTTP
servers popping up these days would be a good endeavor for any CS
student.
Right now, I'm
Hey Phil,
we're always responsive to such suggestions, but I think we've beaten
you to it, at least somewhat, see below for what may be useful
resources.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 04:16:45PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Much Better Solution:
***
* Modify Apache so
As the last blocker to a 2.0.x release has now cleared, I'm going to
make good on my offer and finally roll a candidate. Apart from the
licensing blocker, 2.0.x has been in good shape for about 3 months now,
and even tests clean.
I'm not sure if I'm stepping on anyone's toes here, if I am, I
Hmm, I'm getting pointed at a thread titled any undocumented
showstoppers for 2.0.56, but it's not in my mailbox yet.
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:48:25PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
As the last blocker to a 2.0.x release has now cleared, I'm going to
make good on my offer and finally roll
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:52:05PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Hmm, I'm getting pointed at a thread titled any undocumented
showstoppers for 2.0.56, but it's not in my mailbox yet.
While I go find out why I havn't received a fair bit of mail, I've read
the thread online, and PR 39275
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:58:50PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:52:05PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Hmm, I'm getting pointed at a thread titled any undocumented
showstoppers for 2.0.56, but it's not in my mailbox yet.
While I go find out why I havn't
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 10:20:29AM -0400, Chris Darroch wrote:
Re my option C, it also occurs to me that instead of squeezing
the worker MPM's start and listener threads into extra, internal
worker_score structures, it might be more appropriate to create a
new section of the scoreboard with
1 - 100 of 413 matches
Mail list logo
