On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I was only talking about the OPTIONS /path case. * is a special
case of a true null request -- it should only deal with server
capabilities and ignore Location/Directory configs.
Could you clarify, though
On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Nope. * is not a resource. Since it is impossible to know the
mask of the entire resource space, HTTP does not require that
Allow be included on OPTIONS * responses. Just committed a fix.
Hmm, I am still seeing an Allow header even after my
On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Tue Oct 2 14:21:04 2007
New Revision: 581389
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=581389view=rev
Log:
Ensure the URI is * and not something like *foo
I did not want that case to pass through, on purpose.
Roy
I don't see why we care, either way.
Roy
On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
-if ((r-method_number != M_OPTIONS) || !r-uri || strcmp(r-
uri, *)) {
-return DECLINED;
+if ((r-method_number == M_OPTIONS) r-uri (r-uri[0]
== '*')) {
+return OK; /* Send HTTP pong, without Allow
header */
On Sep 30, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
RFC2616 is clear that:
1. OPTIONS * is allowed.
2. OPTIONS can be proxied.
However, it's not clear that OPTIONS * can be proxied,
given that there's no natural URL representation of it (* != /*).
An absolute http request-URI with no path.
for reporting problems in our bugzilla. Hopefully, other windows
developers will pick up the slack and take your ideas as a good
start for contributing.
Roy T. Fielding (V.P., Apache HTTP Server)
On Sep 18, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
This works as designed. Please see the difference between the
accept headers sent by
IE6 and Firefox
IE6: Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Firefox: Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate
IE6 adds an additional space between gzip and
On Sep 9, 2007, at 1:00 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/09/2007 04:30 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:25:26 +0200
Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/09/2007 02:21 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
PR 41798 and many related ones (eg 39746, 38980 - both of which
I've
closed today)
On Sep 13, 2007, at 7:54 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
Changes to the request URI must be referred back to the client in the
form of a redirect. Any other choice will cause security holes in
the request chain, somewhere.
The proxy (when acting as a proxy) must not change the URI.
The
On Sep 13, 2007, at 8:20 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
Sorry for being confused, but what change to a URI are you
talking about? Transforming
GET /a/../b/somewhere
into
a request for /b/somewhere?
This is the usual transformation we do also in the case we deliver
static content (without
+1 httpd-2.2.6, OS X 10.4.10, gcc 4.0.1
Roy
On Aug 30, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Please check out the updated mime.types file and, if possible, see
if it breaks anything on a real site.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/conf/
mime.types
Technically, it is docs, but I am blurry
Please check out the updated mime.types file and, if possible, see
if it breaks anything on a real site.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/conf/mime.types
Technically, it is docs, but I am blurry-eyed at the moment and need
to do *something* for my wedding anniversary
BTW, I have to submit a status report to the ASF board tomorrow.
Does anyone have anything special that I should add?
Roy
For standards conformance, I am going to start removing the default
content type settings from trunk tomorrow.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13986
If you have any problems with that, let them be known here.
Roy
On Aug 23, 2007, at 7:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
On 8/23/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm happy with a number of alternative names, mod_pcre_filter,
mod_text_filter,
mod_subst_filter, whatever, a number come to mind. The fact is,
On Aug 13, 2007, at 4:59 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 13, 2007, at 1:08 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just a FYI: I'm planning on doing a TR of 2.0.61 tomorrow (Aug 13);
It's a retag of 2.0.60 (plus the version bump, 'natch), and a reroll
with the singular exception
On Aug 6, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
PRs 23287 and 42993, and recent discussion here, show up some
issues with handling Content-Encoding. Specifically regarding
mod_deflate, but also relevant to any other filters that
affect or are affected by Content-Encoding.
I'll just reiterate
On Jul 29, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Attached is a patch for mod_cache (patch is for httpd-2.2.4) that
implements what I suggested in May (see the entire thread at
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200705.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ).
The problem is that
On May 21, 2007, at 7:49 AM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Does anybody see a problem with changing mod_cache to not update
the stored headers when the request has max-age=0, the body turns
out not to be stale and the on-disk header hasn't expired?
Yes, the problem is that it will break content
On May 21, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Why don't you just add an ignore of cache-control on requests from
those stupid download managers? A simple BrowserMatch should do.
I am not quite sure what you mean by this. AFAIK you cannot set
CacheIgnoreCacheControl based on env
On May 17, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/17/2007 11:28 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 5/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ rpluem : Now that CacheIgnoreQueryString has been
backported
r538807
+ applies cleanly to 2.2.x. So I assume
On May 17, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
BTW, I'm not a fan of us inventing Expires headers in this section of
code - I'd think it'd be far cleaner to off-load Expires response
header generation to mod_expires and leave the cache out of it
entirely - inventing Expires values deep
On May 17, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
See the patch I just posted - we should also remove the Date
manipulation too, IMO.
Probably. If Date is added, it should be done by the protocol filter
(mod_proxy) when the message is received, not the cache.
Just for clarification: It
On May 8, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
Why are the regex-related routine declarations splashed across
httpd.h and ap_regex.h? And why are there two versions of regcomp,
only one of which takes a pool for allocation?
Too much history and a bit of indecisiveness. We originally used a
On May 8, 2007, at 11:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#define USE_ALTERNATE_IS_CONNECTED 1
+
+#if !defined(APR_MSG_PEEK) defined(MSG_PEEK)
+#define APR_MSG_PEEK MSG_PEEK
+#endif
+
+#if USE_ALTERNATE_IS_CONNECTED defined(APR_MSG_PEEK)
Huh? Why are we polluting macro space with useless
On May 9, 2007, at 5:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 9, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 11:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#define USE_ALTERNATE_IS_CONNECTED 1
+
+#if !defined(APR_MSG_PEEK) defined(MSG_PEEK)
+#define APR_MSG_PEEK MSG_PEEK
+#endif
On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
I would find it useful to have the SVN revision info in the head of
the sources;
No, that is not going to happen. Id tags make it extremely hard to
manage collaborative development across multiple subversion trees,
such as when a vendor keeps
On Mar 16, 2007, at 2:48 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'd like to propose we ship apache_2.2.4-win32-x86-
openssl-0.9.8d.msi with
this release. Couple of notes...
Did anyone else have feedback on the comments/notes? I know Roy's
[removed CCs to the NSA, BIS, and archive. ;-)]
On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
I'm so out of the loop at the moment its not even funny.
Do we need to do something with this ?
No, it was just a legal notice filed in case someone decides
that libapreq2 qualifies as
SUBMISSION TYPE: TSU
SUBMITTED BY: Roy T. Fielding
SUBMITTED FOR:The Apache Software Foundation
POINT OF CONTACT: Secretary, The Apache Software Foundation
FAX: +1-410-803-2258
MANUFACTURER(S): The Apache Software Foundation
PRODUCT NAME/MODEL
SUBMISSION TYPE: TSU
SUBMITTED BY: Roy T. Fielding
SUBMITTED FOR:The Apache Software Foundation
POINT OF CONTACT: Secretary, The Apache Software Foundation
FAX: +1-410-803-2258
MANUFACTURER(S): The Apache Software Foundation
PRODUCT NAME/MODEL
On Feb 17, 2007, at 4:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
With the posting of these notifications, and record of the
http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/ - there are no further
obstacles to posting http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/
apache_2.2.4-win32-x86-openssl-0.9.8d.msi
On Feb 18, 2007, at 3:54 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
And is it now possible to post mod_ssl RPM binaries?
Yes. In fact, there is no reason to distinguish between 2.x binaries
containing and not containing mod_ssl -- they are all equally 5D002
export-controlled. We would have to fork the
On Feb 22, 2007, at 3:03 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
NOTIFICATION: http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/
Something I notice about this page; does it make sense to explode the
visible hyperlink under Controlled Source to include the text of the
URI, e.g
On Feb 22, 2007, at 3:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
No release, no binaries, Yes. What is your objection to binaries once
a new release is voted on (other than not releasable because ...)?
I'd rather not supply floods to the clueless. Providing tools to
developers is okay. If someone
On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:44 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
The breakage between 1.x and 2.0 was far too much. If we
do it again, the world will rightly conclude that Apache
is not a solution fit for the long term.
+1. While it's fun and rewarding to hack
On Feb 19, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Since the last report in November, we have seen 2 software
releases:
o httpd 2.2.4
o mod_python 3.3.1
2 new codebases are making their way into the project;
mod_ftp has been accepted for graduation from the Incubator
(this will also be
SUBMISSION TYPE: TSU
SUBMITTED BY: Roy T. Fielding
SUBMITTED FOR:The Apache Software Foundation
POINT OF CONTACT: Secretary, The Apache Software Foundation
FAX: +1-410-803-2258
MANUFACTURER(S): The Apache Software Foundation
PRODUCT NAME/MODEL
SUBMISSION TYPE: TSU
SUBMITTED BY: Roy T. Fielding
SUBMITTED FOR:The Apache Software Foundation
POINT OF CONTACT: Secretary, The Apache Software Foundation
FAX: +1-410-803-2258
MANUFACTURER(S): The Apache Software Foundation, The OpenSSL Project
On Feb 15, 2007, at 9:41 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
1. mod_ftp be a httpd sub-project (ala mod_box)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mod_ftp/trunk/
needs a new home (there are no tags or remaining branches).
Can I suggest;
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/
On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:32 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
I believe the httpd project is ready for a push towards the next major
version.
So do I. In fact I was just about to create a sandbox for that purpose
yesterday, but had to get the crypto stuff sorted out first.
But do we really want to start
On Feb 14, 2007, at 3:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
+1 to moving goal and discussion to a SVN file and starting a sandbox
(same level as tags/branches?)
Nooo - it is another sort of branch/, so belongs there.
We could have a separate place, but why? branches/n.n.x
On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
The vote shall be open 72 hours or until all of the mod_python
core group members have voted, whichever is earlier.
Well, I didn't get enough responses, so this will have to wait
until after folks figure out what to do next.
Roy
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
Hi Roy,
+1 approve requesting a mod_python TLP
+2 to the alterative: approve requesting a python TLP
I think that would be fine, except you will have to come up with a
name that is not Apache Python Project. That is essentially a
trademark
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 01/15/2007 01:56 PM, Bart van der Schans wrote:
In r463496 the following check was added to mod_cache.c :
else if (exp != APR_DATE_BAD exp r-request_time)
{
/* if a Expires header is in the past, don't cache it */
On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
What is the difference between a RESOLVED bug and a CLOSED
one? Is
it not possible to re-open/add comments to CLOSED reports or
something?
It's always seemed like a meaningless distinction to me, going through
marking stuff CLOSED seems like a
On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Tue Jan 9 13:33:19 2007
New Revision: 494598
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=494598
Log:
Move dist/ to where one might expect to find it. Not often
we update site/docs without updating dist/ too.
About to
+1, all sigs verified on Darwin Kernel Version 8.8.0 (10.4.8) powerpc
powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1 (GCC) 4.0.1 (Apple Computer, Inc.
build 5367)
All tests successful, 23 tests and 14 subtests skipped.
Files=65, Tests=2078, 100 wallclock secs (48.33 cusr + 13.37 csys =
61.70 CPU)
On Dec 20, 2006, at 5:14 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
* mpm_winnt: Fix return values from wait_for_many_objects.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=428029
2.2.x version of patch:
Trunk version works
+
Argh, my stupid ISP is losing apache email again because they use
spamcop.
On Dec 7, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
tor 2006-12-07 klockan 02:42 +0100 skrev Justin Erenkrantz:
-1 on adding semantic junk to the existing ETag (and keeping it
strong); that's blatantly uncool. Any
On Dec 8, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/8/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we should be doing is sending transfer-encoding, not content-
encoding,
and get past the chicken and egg dilemma of that feature in HTTP.
If we are changing content-encoding, then we
This is a bit unsettling, especially since I neither need nor want
any database-backed auth.
==
[Thu Dec 07 13:49:44 2006] [notice] Digest: generating secret for
digest authent
ication ...
[Thu Dec 07 13:49:44 2006] [notice] Digest: done
[Thu Dec 07 13:49:44 2006] [crit] (70023)This
Protocol issues really should be brought up on the dev list, with an
appropriate subject, and not left in bugzilla.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39727
Entities gzip:ed by mod_deflate still carries the same ETag as the
plain entiy,
causing inconsistency in ETag aware
+1
Roy
On Dec 4, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Brian McCallister wrote:
Thursday came and went, and the tally seems positive:
+1 Paul Querna, Jim Jagielski, Justin Erenkrantz, Sander Temme,
Garrett Rooney, Brian McCallister
+0 Andre Malo
May I start the paperwork?
Yes, go ahead and submit the software
On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
FWIW, mod_mbox, which you listed as dormant, has had more commits
in the last 6 months than the 1.3.x branch.
BTW, are you talking about one of the mod_mbox branches? I saw only
a couple minor changes on trunk in the last 6 months.
Ah, now I
I am due to send a report for the HTTP server project to the ASF
board this Monday, so if you have anything you would like me to
send along then now is a good time to speak up.
Below is what I have so far.
Roy
=
Apache HTTP Server Project
Status report for 15 November
On Nov 8, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
Brian has expressed interest in brining mod_wombat to the ASF.
Is there interest in this PMC to bring it in under us?
It sounds like there is enough interest, given the old theory that
three committers are enough to support most any module. I
On Oct 30, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:36:43 -0700
Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) change the interface: deal with the buckets entirely in
mod_cache and just pass (char *,size_t) pairs to store_body
#3 gets my vote. I hate bucket brigades anyway.
On Oct 31, 2006, at 1:59 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
It was not intended as any such thing. Just a comment noting
that we have an extremely simple case in which this caching
strategy will degrade system performance not just a little,
but by a whole order of magnitude. The lusers will love it.
Okay,
As far as mod_*cache is concerned, we should work out the technical
definition of what those modules are supposed to be doing and just
stick with one direction on trunk. Once that decision is made,
folks can veto code on the basis of technical concerns (such as, that
module should be for small
On Oct 23, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Brian McQueen wrote:
The issue isn't really the limit, but the way Apache behaves when it
encounters the limit. When Apache encounters the limit it still reads
then entire incoming byte stream, even if its only throwing it away.
That is as demanded by the HTTP
On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:24 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the r-method_number is unknown the r-method
is unknown or corrupted as well. Log the method number
that was not recognized.
I can't tell from this snippet whether you are talking about the
HTTP method received or some bit of marshalled
On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
We have a bunch of new bug reports[1], detailing bugs of the form
if ((rv = do_something(args) == APR_SUCCESS))
for
if ((rv = do_something(args)) == APR_SUCCESS)
Of course, that's a C classic, and can be a *** to spot.
Huh, just turn on
On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2006 23:31, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
We can avoid this by adopting an alternative coding style
that doesn't rely on confusing parentheses:
if (rv = do_something(args), rv == APR_SUCCESS)
Which nobody uses because it is so
On Sep 1, 2006, at 12:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Project Committee Members...
Adopt [EMAIL PROTECTED], seeded from apache-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
current subscribers, for module authors to use for peer developer
support?
(API 'users', essentially.)
+1 on creating the list, -1 on
On Aug 10, 2006, at 12:26 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy would prefer we determine the active consensus. Please vote
for what
you believe is the principal, proper name of the product we create
from
the sources located in the
On Aug 1, 2006, at 11:00 PM, Sebastian Nohn wrote:
I'd like to propose these patches for inclusion:
http://www.nohn.org/blog/uploads/servertokens_off.patch
http://www.nohn.org/blog/uploads/servertokens_off_documentation.patch
I know, this is an unwanted topic here. Reasons are described in
On Jul 28, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
I'm in two minds about that. There is the workaround of
configure --with-pcre
but where does that leave packages? PR#27550 names two
modules that needed to work around the bundled PCRE:
mod_php and mod_caml. That implies two workarounds for the
On Jul 27, 2006, at 1:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
That line is for the product name, not the project name.
And - I understood that our product is the Apache HTTP Server,
not httpd.
At least that's been the consensus in the docs project for the
last three
On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:32 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
From this perspective and for clarity, while we are on the subject,
perhaps
apache-httpd-X would be the appropriate package names, and
seems that
would be consistent with how most many ASF projects are
distributing their
tarballs
On Jul 27, 2006, at 10:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Thu Jul 27 10:06:27 2006
New Revision: 426143
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=426143view=rev
Log:
Wrong project name
That line is for the product name, not the project name.
Roy
On Jul 27, 2006, at 12:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jul 27, 2006, at 10:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: wrowe
Date: Thu Jul 27 10:06:27 2006
New Revision: 426143
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=426143view=rev
Log:
Wrong project name
That line
On Jul 17, 2006, at 7:36 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
With the notice up at http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html, is the
ASF
in a position to start publishing binaries containing crypto?
No. We know what needs to be done, but the steps are
1) write the export page
a) add all the
On Jul 11, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
It would of been helpful to discuss this change before doing it on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Last time someone just went off and did it, we ended up
reverting it all again.
That was for updating the dates, and the discussion was to hold off
because the
On Jun 9, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
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
Sorry, I did a poor job of explaining -- the binaries issue is about
openssl. The openssl issue is what required me to read the EAR
guidelines, but my response is based on what I learned about the
EAR in general.
The mere presence of mod_ssl source code appears to be sufficient to
make the
On Jun 8, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
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 would be, but I'd prefer that we exhaust all of the alternative
options before doing anything
After quite a bit of delving into the US export requirements for
encryption-related software, I have found that we are able to
distribute 100% open source packages with identifiable source code
to anyone not in the banned set of countries. However,
a) we have to file export notices prior to
On Jun 7, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
e) people who are in the banned set of countries and people in
countries that forbid encryption cannot legally download the
current
httpd-2 packages because they include mod_ssl even when it won't be
used.
I don't see how this can
On Jun 7, 2006, at 1:39 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
On the T-8 prohibited countries list, note it is a crime to export
technologies
to them (it's hard for the US to define a crime to obtain said
technologies in
a foreign jurisdiction - let's not get into that debate). However,
as a
On Jun 7, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
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
On Jun 7, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
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
On May 10, 2006, at 2:10 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Just a footnote from legal-discuss that the win32 nmake -f
Makefile.win install
isn't moving NOTICE (yet) to the target tree, and once we do that,
we need to
then staple it into the installer. Trivial but needed to be noted.
yes,
On May 8, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 5/8/06, Sander Temme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Found on http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=80572view=rev
Does an archive of that apache-core mailing list mentioned above
exist?
Yes, it does. The first few years of archives of the
On May 3, 2006, at 5:56 AM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006 14:31:06 +0200 (SAST)
Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 3, 2006 1:26 am, Davi Arnaut said:
Then you will end up with code that does not meet the
requirements of
HTTP, and you will have wasted your time.
On May 3, 2006, at 12:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Brian Akins wrote:
Is anyone else interested in having a generic cache architecture?
(not http). I have plenty of cases were I re-invent the wheel for
caching various things (IP's, sessions, whatever, etc.). It would
be nice to
Wow, this discussion is getting out of hand. It is not a technical
issue and thus isn't going to get resolved by throwing paint cans
at the shed. For years, the ASF had been following the examples
commonly seen in commercial software products of placing a general
copyright header all over the
On Apr 21, 2006, at 10:39 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
-1 to adopting Jackrabbits' license until Roy's (very reasonable)
nit on the
language is addressed. -1 to removing copyright until we have an
absolute,
documented policy from ASF legal. I'm glad you and Roy feel
entirely assured
On Apr 19, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
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
On Apr 19, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 4/19/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit/
HEADER.txt
The only pedantic item I see with that wording is that it says the
Apache Software Foundation instead
On Apr 18, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Also, what are people's thoughts on including sha1 signatures in our
official dist? We havn't heretofore, is there any benefit? The PGP
signatures are there to confirm veracity, the simple checksums are
really only to detect corrupted
On Apr 11, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tuesday 11 April 2006 22:10, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 04/11/2006 04:00 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It probably needs to be updated for RFC 3986 anyway. The path
should
be set to , not NULL. The HTTP server should
On Apr 10, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
I also thought initially to fix this in apr-util, but right know I
am not
sure about it, because IMHO apr_uri_parse should do generic uri
parsing.
Setting an empty uri to / seems to be HTTP specific, so I am not
sure
if we should do this
On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:36 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Has anyone ever seen a situation where httpd (or the OS) will RST a
connection because there's too much unread data or such?
I'm doing some pipelined requests with serf against a 2.0.50 httpd
on RH7.1
server (2.4.2 kernel?). I'm getting
On Feb 9, 2006, at 10:17 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On IRC, Paul pointed out this bug (now fixed):
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35292
2.0.50 probably has this bug - in that it'll won't do lingering close
correctly - and perhaps that's what I'm running into.
You're
On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
When the core group votes for a release candidate, is it a
consensus vote or a majority vote? To quote from the Apache voting
guidelines, An action item requiring consensus approval must
receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and no vetos. An
On Jan 21, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Ok. Then I had a different understanding from my osmosis :-).
Any other comments on this?
I have no problem adopting the above rules for future CHANGE entries.
Jim is correct.
It is easy to forget now because Subversion doesn't have the
201 - 300 of 552 matches
Mail list logo
