Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Jeff Trawick
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:18:38 -0800, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? (Yes, I volunteer to be RM.) How about targetting next Tuesday (2/8) for 2.0.53? I can lay down the candidate tarball on Friday morning, so whatever backports

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Jess Holle
Brad Nicholes wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, January 31, 2005 2:26:09 PM I'd love to see the LDAP socket timeout configuration stuff make it in for 2.0.53! -- Jess Holle justin Me too ;) Any voters out there?

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Graham Leggett
Jess Holle said: I don't have a vote, but I believe the socket timeout configuration is necessary to address issues seen with firewall timeouts and the LDAP connections held open by Apache. Is there an outstanding patch for this yet? The right way to solve this problem is to allocate the

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Jim Jagielski
Graham Leggett wrote: Jess Holle said: I don't have a vote, but I believe the socket timeout configuration is necessary to address issues seen with firewall timeouts and the LDAP connections held open by Apache. Is there an outstanding patch for this yet? The right way to solve

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Brad Nicholes
I have already added a new directive to util_ldap called LDAPConnectionTimeout ( http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.1/mod/mod_ldap.html#ldapconnectiontimeout ) which allows util_ldap to set the network timeout through rc = apr_ldap_set_option(p, NULL, LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT,

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Jess Holle
I hate to say it but any solution would be appreciated. This is the one brick wall customers are running into when trying to use Apache (with mod_auth_ldap and mod_jk being the heaviest dependencies beyond core functionality). -- Jess Holle Brad Nicholes wrote: I have already added a

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Mladen Turk
Brad Nicholes wrote: I have already added a new directive to util_ldap called LDAPConnectionTimeout ( http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.1/mod/mod_ldap.html#ldapconnectiontimeout ) which allows util_ldap to set the network timeout through rc = apr_ldap_set_option(p, NULL, LDAP_OPT_NETWORK_TIMEOUT,

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Jess Holle
Ouch! Does the MS LDAP SDK define anything equivalent? Fixing this on some platforms is better than on none, though. -- Jess Holle Mladen Turk wrote: Brad Nicholes wrote: I have already added a new directive to util_ldap called LDAPConnectionTimeout (

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Shannon Eric Peevey
I don't have a vote, but I believe the socket timeout configuration is necessary to address issues seen with firewall timeouts and the LDAP connections held open by Apache. -- Jess Holle I don't know if this is the best time/place to make a request for patches to be included in 2.0.53, but

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Brad Nicholes
I was hoping that this wouldn't be the case. But since it is, take a look at SVN r149419 Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:39:20 AM Brad Nicholes wrote: I have already added a new directive to util_ldap called LDAPConnectionTimeout (

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
--On Tuesday, February 1, 2005 6:41 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heck, I don't know how we get from here to closure on the 2.1-dev equivalent ;) What do we do with the proxy-reqbody branch? Merge to trunk? Is it ready to be reviewed? I'd suggest asking for review to merge it

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Mladen Turk
Brad Nicholes wrote: I was hoping that this wouldn't be the case. But since it is, take a look at SVN r149419 util_ldap.c util_ldap.c(1615) : error C2065: 's' : undeclared identifier util_ldap.c(1615) : warning C4047: 'function' : 'const server_rec *' differs in levels of indirection from

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Brad Nicholes
I hate it when I get bit by copy and paste. Try r149421. Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:23:01 AM Brad Nicholes wrote: I was hoping that this wouldn't be the case. But since it is, take a look at SVN r149419 util_ldap.c util_ldap.c(1615) : error C2065: 's' :

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-02-01 Thread Jim Jagielski
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Tuesday, February 1, 2005 6:41 AM -0500 Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heck, I don't know how we get from here to closure on the 2.1-dev equivalent ;) What do we do with the proxy-reqbody branch? Merge to trunk? Is it ready to be reviewed?

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-01-31 Thread Jess Holle
I'd love to see the LDAP socket timeout configuration stuff make it in for 2.0.53! -- Jess Holle Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? (Yes, I volunteer to be RM.) How about targetting next Tuesday (2/8) for 2.0.53? I can lay down the candidate

Re: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-01-31 Thread Brad Nicholes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, January 31, 2005 2:26:09 PM I'd love to see the LDAP socket timeout configuration stuff make it in for 2.0.53! -- Jess Holle Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? (Yes, I volunteer to be RM.) How about targetting next

RE: Time for 2.0.53?

2005-01-31 Thread Sander Striker
From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:19 PM Any opposition to doing a tag and roll of 2.0.53 soon? Nope. (Yes, I volunteer to be RM.) Thanks Justin. How about targetting next Tuesday (2/8) for 2.0.53? I can lay down the candidate tarball