On Feb 12, 2011, at 6:03 PM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
Author: minfrin
Date: Sun Feb 13 02:03:29 2011
New Revision: 1070179
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1070179view=rev
Log:
mod_cache: When a request other than GET or HEAD arrives, we must
invalidate existing cache entities as
Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. -1 (veto). This requirement will
be (or has already been) removed from httpbis because it hinders
extensibility and breaks content management systems, just as the
change below causes content-language to be broken. That is why
we never implemented this
On Feb 4, 2011, at 12:34 PM, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Fri Feb 4 20:34:47 2011
New Revision: 1067276
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1067276view=rev
Log:
Lock around the time when we're mucking w/ balancers...
Modified:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
Currently ForceType is only really effective for static files, since
it works in a fixup hook and most other generators/handler will
clobber the value in the actual handler by calling ap_set_content_type
themselves.
Yikes, that's a bug. Can
On Oct 21, 2010, at 11:16 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 10/21/2010 10:21 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
All this debate makes me wonder how many people here still
*run* and *administer* web sites... How about putting yourself
in the shoes of the sys admin before willy-nilly recrafting
configs.
On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
And there are a lot of string compares in the Apache codebase. Everytime
you see a strcmp, you (or is it only me?) have to stop and think well, is
this branch checking for equality or the opposite?
I think this is a case where either a
IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to httpd 3.x,
since it would break almost all existing configs and introduce security
holes if the installer is not prepared to rewrite them.
Deprecating Limit and LimitExcept can be done in 2.4.x, which means
keeping their functionality
On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
IMO, removing Limit and LimitExcept would require a bump to httpd
3.x, since it would break almost all existing configs and
introduce security holes if the installer is not prepared
On Oct 17, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
One of the missing things that mod_cache can't do that other caches can is to
be able to override the Cache-Control and Vary headers, so that the cache can
be targeted for custom behaviour.
The classic use case is when you
On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
CTR is fine for all normal fixes. RTC is always preferred for major code
refactorings.
I ask you this: What constitutes a modest new feature? It's not a fix. It's
not a major code refactoring. But modest new features have been strongly
Begin forwarded message:
From: Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen yn...@opera.com
Date: May 25, 2010 5:08:26 AM PDT
To: Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com
Subject: Apache, mod_ssl, OpenSSL 1.0.0 and the TLS ServerName Indication
extension
Hello Roy,
You are most likely not the right person to send
I am confused. Why is this a good idea? Why is it unexpected to
encounter a 413 response after a timeout due to a read of chunked
body, and how does changing it to a 400 somehow prevent a double
errordoc? Why not just fix the double errordoc bug instead of
the case that triggers it?
Roy
On Apr 26, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
I am confused. Why is this a good idea? Why is it unexpected to
encounter a 413 response after a timeout due to a read of chunked
body,
The body is not too large
On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:48 AM, rbo...@apache.org wrote:
Author: rbowen
Date: Tue Mar 16 12:48:31 2010
New Revision: 923712
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=923712view=rev
Log:
In as much as we can be said to have consensus on anything at all, we
appear to have consensus that we will
On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 3/16/2010 12:37 PM, Noirin Shirley wrote:
In some places, we use httpd, but that leads to some horrible
confusion between the product and the command.
I
On Jan 29, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Friday 29 January 2010, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
Thanks for clarification. I guess I understand your intension
better now. So basicly you want those providers that do not
implement GET by themselves to enforce the usage of the
BTW, I think it is time to comment out all of the media types
we don't actually use, since (looking at mod_mime.c) the
performance impact might be getting relevant to start-time
even if they are not added to the hash.
I'll do that tomorrow if nobody objects.
Roy
I personally find it useful to continue having support for
features that were once used in the past, specifically to
test things that once worked to see if they still work
with the current version of Apache. Therefore, I do not
consider these modules to be obsolete. Unless they are
somehow
On Oct 19, 2009, at 1:53 PM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Mon Oct 19 20:53:04 2009
New Revision: 826805
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=826805view=rev
Log:
Change the default algorithm for htpasswd to MD5 on all platforms.
Crypt
with its 8 character limit is not useful
On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Chris Darroch
chr...@pearsoncmg.com wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Beyond beta, I think we have something that is clearly better
than the 2007 mod_fcgid 2.2 release and should get out the door
soon as a GA (as
On Oct 3, 2009, at 7:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Querna schrieb:
all the files are now sourced from svn:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/
woah, so that means all
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you;
in that
case the commit log should show
Submitted by: xxx yyy xxx zzz.com http://zzz.com
Reviewed by: (you)
I know, I
Oh, for crying out loud, get a grip folks. There is no standard
md5 file format. It isn't even a good way to validate the build
in the first place -- the signature file exists for that purpose.
If you don't like the file format, write a friggin perl script
to read whatever is there and feed it
On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
here's based on input from Rainer and Rüdiger my last trial unless
I get
further positive comments instead of disappointing ones ...
highlighted:
http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/testchecksum/testchecksums.sh.html
plaintext:
On Aug 29, 2009, at 11:03 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
2009/8/30 Nick Kew n...@webthing.com:
On 27 Aug 2009, at 17:22, bugzi...@apache.org wrote:
It appears that Apache is violating this paragraph from RFC 2616:
- Upon receiving a request which includes an Expect request-
header
On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:44 AM, j...@apache.org wrote:
Submitted by: rpluem
Reviewed/backported by: jim
Hi Jim,
Could you please return to the traditional way of noting this,
namely
Submitted by: Ruediger Pluem
Reviewed by: jim, minfrin
We already know who backported it (the committer) and
On Aug 28, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'll update my rev of the svn.merge script to do that...
But the 'Reviewed by: ...' stuff would require a cut-paste
from STATUS, which defeats the whole purpose of grabbing
the orig svn logs and using that, but I can maybe figure
out some way of
On Aug 20, 2009, at 2:01 AM, Alex Stapleton wrote:
2009/8/19 Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com:
On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Alex Stapleton wrote:
(This has been cross posted to us...@. I apologise if this mail
isn't
relevant to the dev list.)
First some background. We use Apache HTTPD 2.0
On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Alex Stapleton wrote:
(This has been cross posted to us...@. I apologise if this mail isn't
relevant to the dev list.)
First some background. We use Apache HTTPD 2.0 over a high-latency,
high packet loss GPRS WAN. The cost per byte is tangible. We use SSL.
We also
that it was unanimously approved by the board:
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors heretofore appointed Roy T. Fielding
to the office of Vice President, Apache HTTP Server, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is in receipt of the resignation of
Roy T. Fielding from the office of Vice President, Apache HTTP
On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
That, on the other hand, stands. In the case of an HTTP/1.0
request, we'd be closing the connection to signal end-of-response.
Not on a HEAD request.
Roy
I think this is an interesting opportunity to compare
different implementations and share code where desirable.
I haven't seen anyone comment on the proposal yet.
Roy
Begin forwarded message:
From: Leif Hedstrom l...@yahoo-inc.com
Date: June 12, 2009 9:17:59 AM PDT
To:
On May 17, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Edward Z. Yang wrote:
Hello Roy,
Two months ago a patch was committed to Apache which prevented Apache
from sending content body when forbidden by the HTTP protocol, namely
204 and 304 response. You vetoed this patch, and said that the patch
applied to the
On May 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
The case under discussion was errors generated by a script and
propagated by the server without reference to ap_send_error_response.
Fix the script.
Roy
On May 18, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 12:23:38 -0700
Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On May 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
The case under discussion was errors generated by a script and
propagated by the server without reference
Does anyone have anything special that they would like me to
pass on to the ASF board? I could request a budget for our
thousand-open-bugs-bash party.
Roy
On May 7, 2009, at 10:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
In any case, I have a better solution. mod_so is not a URI mapper,
nor
is mod_watchdog. I created a modules/core/ tree; fixed.
Why do people always want to use core as a directory name?
sys or systemic would be better, or just move
On May 4, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
During my work on the SNI backport I noticed that during my
preparation of
the backport patch for this proposal one import line fell through
the cracks
that was contained in r760866.
The following patch would fix this missing
-1 (veto)
Filling obscure areas of the server with stupid hacks that modify
the request structure because of something the content generator
*might* do is harmful to overall stability. 204 and 304 are already
handled elsewhere (or, if not, they should be handled elsewhere).
Roy
On Mar 30,
On Mar 17, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Chris Darroch wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Done. I set all of Ryan Pan's commits to svn:author=pqf
(for consistency), loaded the whole thing under httpd/mod_fcgid
and fixed the eol-style to native.
Please relicense the directory and files first before making
On Feb 18, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Chris Darroch wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I'd suggest that we import the code into SVN by starting not
with this temporary package, but with a cvs2svn export of the
SourceForge commit history. The relicensing can then follow as
a single subsequent commit
On Mar 6, 2009, at 4:58 PM, ntwrkd wrote:
I haven't heard back from faxing my developer app to the ASF. Would I
even be able to contribute?
Anyone can contribute by posting fixes in email or bugzilla.
A CLA is only required by us when we think a given contribution is
significant enough to
I spent a while looking at mod_deflate and various filter related
issues in 2.2.x/trunk, but I had to context switch away before
I could create such a large fix. This message is to write
down my conclusions so that I can remember them and maybe fix
the silly thing when I get a chance, or maybe
On Jan 27, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Chris Darroch wrote:
The httpd-mod_fcgid.xml file is my first whack at the IP clearance
template.
I renamed this .xml.utf8 this morning because I realized it has some
non-ASCII UTF-8 character sequences in it. I don't know if those will
pass through the
On Jan 31, 2009, at 1:53 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
This causes the server to crash in case where no r-handler is set
(e.g. in the case
of a non existing resource).
Bummer. I suppose it would be too difficult to fix the couple hundred
places where strcmp is used on r-handler without checking
On Jan 30, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 01/30/2009 03:48 AM, field...@apache.org wrote:
Author: fielding
Date: Fri Jan 30 02:48:08 2009
New Revision: 739150
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=739150view=rev
Log:
revert r711228: the ap_unixd_setup_child prototype needs to go
On Jan 30, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 30, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 01/30/2009 03:48 AM, field...@apache.org wrote:
+AP_DECLARE(int) ap_unixd_setup_child(void); /* mod_cgid needs
this */
+
Hm. This break compilation of trunk as this symbol is now
mod_unixd.c:306: warning: no previous prototype for 'unixd_setup_child'
(in case someone feels like fixing it before I wake up)
Roy
+1
Roy
On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
From: Justin Erenkrantz jus...@erenkrantz.com
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 1:28:27 PM
Subject: Re: Configuration change for c...@httpd?
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Shrug, I can try completely
On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com
wrote:
I am completely uninterested in fixing the config just because some
person reflexively does a reply-all and then doesn't edit their own
destination addresses
On Dec 31, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Chris Darroch wrote:
pqf wrote:
version 1.10 ( Jul 3rd 2006 )
1. Use poll() instead of select() in UNIX. It becomes problematic on
apache2 with large number of logfiles. Apache2 calls poll()
(when OS supports it), and in that case it doesn't need to be
On Dec 9, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Chris Darroch wrote:
This is all fairly simple, I think, especially if
MatchNotAny/RequireNone is removed as well so that Require retains
its
apparent meaning everywhere. See if the patch below meets your
expectations; if so, I'll commit it and update the
On Dec 10, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
It's unfortunate there's no clear copyright statement, but would it
not be reasonable to assume Copyright Pan Qingfeng and deal with him?
Contact other contributors as a courtesy, but not let it worry
I am a little frustrated by the changes to authorization since 2.2.
I don't understand why they were needed in the first place, nor why
we need two different but equally incomprehensible ways to configure
the same things.
I totally understand the desire to make the implementation more
modular
On Dec 7, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Brian McCallister wrote:
I know some folks are attached to the wombat moniker, but the name is
likely to confuse users, particularly now that it is in trunk.
The obvious name, mod_lua, is a bit tricky as there are about half a
dozen projects
IIRC, trunk contains (or contained) a security problem with regard to
backward compatibility with 2.x configs. I won't consider it releasable
until that has been fixed one way or another, and I can't tell from this
mail thread whether the actual fix was committed or not. I thought that
Chris
On Dec 1, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Chris Darroch wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
IIRC, trunk contains (or contained) a security problem with regard to
backward compatibility with 2.x configs. I won't consider it
releasable
until that has been fixed one way or another, and I can't tell
from
On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:06 AM, Marc Noirot wrote:
What about going one step further and using a tool
able to generate Makefiles and IDE files for [name some of your
favorite IDEs] ?
I'm thinking about something like CMake ...
http://lwn.net/Articles/188693/
http://www.cmake.org/
+1
But it
On Sep 5, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Basant Kumar kukreja wrote:
Just a note : sed original code also have ATT copyright.
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/
ucbcmd/sed/sed1.c
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/
ucbcmd/sed/sed0.c
On Aug 3, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I'm a PMC member of the Apache JAMES project.
We received a contribution from an user including an installer for
our main product (Apache JAMES Server). The installer is for the
Windows platform and is created using a commercial product
On Aug 1, 2008, at 4:51 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41364
Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Jul 24, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 07/24/2008 09:32 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Ruediger Pluem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1, but who is behaving correctly currently mod_cgi
On Jul 11, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
On 7/11/2008 at 12:01 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], David Shane
Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the link and description Brad. It makes sense now.
Explains
why the default config was giving me a 403. The 'Require all
The Netware binary packages for 2.0.x and 2.2.x failed to include
the required NOTICE files. They have been moved to the netware
subdirectory of my home dir.
Roy
Begin forwarded message:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
FYI, I sent this mail to
On Jun 5, 2008, at 9:00 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
apr-util-1.3 lets us link httpd (and support/) in such a way as to
avoid
all ldap entanglements.
Any thoughts on adopting
http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/ldap/httpd-2.2-ldap.patch
for the coming release? If built static, do we
On May 22, 2008, at 11:50 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Right now, we are waiting on an APR release before we can
release 2.2.9... Does matter if we go with APR 1.3.0 or 1.2.x,
we need a release (showstopper related to 1.2)
APR_EDONTCARE, although the community was
On May 13, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/13/2008 04:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-gid = atoi(target_gname);
-actual_gname = strdup(target_gname);
+if ((gr = getgrgid(atoi(target_gname))) == NULL) {
Don't we need to check if getgrgid is available on
On May 16, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On May 13, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/13/2008 04:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-gid = atoi(target_gname);
-actual_gname = strdup(target_gname);
+if ((gr = getgrgid(atoi(target_gname))) == NULL
On May 9, 2008, at 3:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_http.c
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/
mod_proxy_http.c?rev=654968r1=654967r2=654968view=diff
On May 2, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Hah, I was reading it like an equation from my discrete math days.
I guess ^ really is less readable. ;-) low hi would be my
preference.
Er, duh, (hi | low) would be my preference. Or just leave it as is.
Roy
On May 2, 2008, at 4:07 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
+c = low ^ hi;
Shouldn't this be c = low + hi ?
In theory either should work, which is faster?
The AND.
I think there is not much difference with respect to speed but using
'+' seems to be easier to read.
On May 2, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/02/2008 07:54 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On May 2, 2008, at 4:07 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
+c = low ^ hi;
Shouldn't this be c = low + hi ?
In theory either should work, which is faster?
The AND.
I
On Apr 15, 2008, at 6:53 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
For those who were not there, slides from Roy's keynote at
ApacheCon EU:
http://roy.gbiv.com/talks/200804_Apache3_ApacheCon.pdf
I came away with one question...
if you read the slides
On Apr 12, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
For those who were not there, slides from Roy's keynote at
ApacheCon EU:
http://roy.gbiv.com/talks/200804_Apache3_ApacheCon.pdf
heh, good thing I managed to get the Internet connection to work long
enough
for the upload.
The only reply I
On Apr 12, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and
discussed with a few other http server people before.
I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based
releases.
My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a
On Apr 13, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
Just out of curiosity... will 3.0 still be a fresh start or will the
core of 2.3 be used?
My slides are intended to be motivational, not definitional.
The only thing known about 3.0 is that it won't be compatible with 2.x.
Other than that
On Apr 13, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
According to Paul:
My proposal is for every 2 months, we do a release of the main stable
branch, which at this time is 2.2.x.
+1 on the concept, but in my opinion 2 month is too short.
3-4 month would be better.
If two months is too
On Apr 11, 2008, at 8:46 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
New features belong in modules so that they don't get compiled into
the server by those of us who don't want that feature. I don't
recall
why or how KeptBodySize made it into http_filter (where it does
not belong
On Apr 9, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
-1. Bloat like this belongs in a module.
This piece of code depends on the KeptBodySize directive, which is
part of the http_filter, and sits alongside ap_discard_request_body().
I can move it into another module
-1. Bloat like this belongs in a module.
Roy
On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:39 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
Just read the mod_rewrite docs:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/rewrite/rewrite_tech.html#InternalAPI
They are already exposing internals to users'.
Users want customization.
We should just do it right, and stop hacking around the central
On Feb 9, 2008, at 4:21 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
Any volunteers to import mod_dns so I can eventually start hacking
at it
again (topic came up at work recently and I have a couple of feature
ideas that I'd like to work on, but really don't want to have to
work in
my old svn + port
On Feb 18, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
On 18 Feb 2008, at 08:29, Issac Goldstand wrote:
I think we also adopted mod_dns at Apachecon,
That'll be *cough* _provisionally_ adopted. Decisions are made on-
list.
Remind me where to find the thread.
I hope this link
On Feb 18, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 2:49 PM, Jorge Schrauwen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
true but like Roy said if mod_dns is allready in use a new name will
need to be found no?
The mod_dns listed on Freshmeat looks like it was lasted changed in
2001 and was
Does anyone have anything special that they would like me to
pass on to the ASF board? Our last report was Nov 12, and since
then we have
Released Apache HTTP Server 2.2.8, 2.0.63, and 1.3.41.
Added two PMC members: Guenter Knauf and Tony Stevenson
Added three committers: Davi Arnaut, Issac
On Jan 14, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008, at 11:54 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I am calling for a release VOTE on the above releases of
Apache HTTP Server (1.3.41, 2.0.63 and 2.2.8).
+1 2.2.8 (Darwin 8.11.0; powerpc
On Jan 11, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I am calling for a release VOTE on the above releases of
Apache HTTP Server (1.3.41, 2.0.63 and 2.2.8).
+1 2.2.8 (Darwin 8.11.0; powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1)
+1 2.0.63 (with a few warning messages)
-1 1.3.41 (compiles, but default
This is getting ridiculous. ETags are important to caching.
Caching is important to HTTP. If you sum up all of the instances
of webdav in the world (including the ones my company sells), they
still amount to nothing compared to the rest of the uses of HTTP.
If you want strong etags for
On Nov 26, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
I accidentally committed an upgrade to httpd/httpd/vendor/pcre/current
to 7.4. I apparently had a commit bit there because I'm on the PMC
from past apreq work.
I immediately asked what to do over on #infra on freenode and
jerenkrantz
On Nov 26, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 8:01 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Once we switched our code to supporting external PCREs, in my
opinion,
we should have just dropped the whole vendor branch concept as it
On Oct 11, 2007, at 12:55 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
This is all irrelevant. No current installation should need any of
those env variables set. They exist solely for working around old
versions of old clients that no longer exist on the net.
Not all... We need mod_proxy responding exactly
The whole idea behind this routine is just wrong.
That set of characters is insufficient (RFC 3986) and, in
any case, a proxy is not responsible for checking valid
characters in a URI. Both the original and this new function
should be deleted.
Roy
On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:16 AM, [EMAIL
On Oct 10, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 18:04:47 Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
And resolution for those who will suffer can be
SetEnvIf Request_Protocol HTTP/1.0 nokeepalive
No unnecessary CPU processing
On Oct 8, 2007, at 2:17 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Please check that your patch does not fall into the traps I
mentioned in
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200709.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on this thread. Otherwise we create a security issue (at least for
reverse proxies
On Oct 3, 2007, at 8:30 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I don't see why we care, either way.
Could you clarify what we aren't caring about, since your answer was
a bit ambiguous? (Abandon or not, message our users or not, etc)
Why do we need to announce anything
On Oct 3, 2007, at 7:20 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
On ons, 2007-10-03 at 14:23 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39727
We have some controversy surrounding this bug, and bugzilla
has turned into a technical discussion that belongs here.
Fundamental
On Oct 3, 2007, at 7:53 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
The problem with trying to invent new ETags is that we'll almost
certainly break conditional requests and I find that a total
non-starter. Your suggestion of appending ;gzip leaks information
that doesn't belong in the ETag - as it is quite
On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:23 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The more I think about this, if Location * is supported at all it
should be the first-applied, global setting of any request, not just
OPTIONS * (there really is no reason for specific exceptions.)
For that matter LocationMatch .* IS
On Oct 2, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The current rec does that. Since * does not map to
any storage, or, in fact to any Location, it simply creates
the Allow from the server capabilities.
Allow only applies to URIs, not *. I have a fix for that.
Roy
101 - 200 of 552 matches
Mail list logo
