From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:08 PM
Sander Striker wrote:
I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be
greatly appreciated.
The new httpd has been running live on daedalus since Thursday, 03-Jul-2003
11:48:45
Hi,
I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be
greatly appreciated.
Sander
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be
greatly appreciated.
will do.
I haven't been following the lists too closely lately (day job + personal
upheaval) so I appreciate the off list email.
Cheers,
Greg
Sander Striker wrote:
I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be
greatly appreciated.
The new httpd has been running live on daedalus since Thursday, 03-Jul-2003
11:48:45 PDT. So far, so good.
Greg
on 7/3/03 3:34, Sander Striker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_47_PRE1. Testing would be
greatly appreciated.
Built on Darwin 6.6 (MacOSX 10.2.6), gcc 3.3, the following configure line:
#! /bin/sh
#
# Created by configure
CFLAGS=-DDEBUG -O0
Sander Striker wrote:
I just tagged STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE3. I think this is going to be
our .44. It would be nice to give it one more day on daedalus
and get some +1s on it.
+1 for release as 2.0.44, and thanks for your efforts.
Greg
Please don't remove AGB_BEFORE_AAA_CHANGES until after the next few -2.0
releases.
-aaron
On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 02:55 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one
and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just
Hi,
I just tagged STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE3. I think this is going to be
our .44. It would be nice to give it one more day on daedalus
and get some +1s on it.
Thanks,
Sander
Differences since PRE2 tag:
=== httpd-2.0
[x] CHANGES
[x] STATUS
[x] Makefile.win
wrowe
Adapt to Brane's
Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one
and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just
move it around to reflect the state of your private tree.
On a related note, I would like to remove all of the non-official
tags that are older than a few months.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:55:14PM -0800, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Private tags are getting pretty annoying. You should only use one
and only one private tag per RM (without a version number) and just
move it around to reflect the state of your private tree.
On a related note, I would like to
provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, January 06, 2003 7:18:20 PM
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should not be in here, please let me know ASAP
From: Brad Nicholes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:48 PM
Just discovered a critical error in Apache for NetWare that prevents
Apache from being run in protected address space. I have committed the
fix in os/netware/util_nw.c in the httpd-2.0 branch. Can this
Sander Striker wrote:
I'll have some time tonight to tag _PRE3, which we should consider
to become .44.
I don't know how/what you are planning to tag, but I'd sure like to see my
server/core.c patch in there to fix the fd leaks on keepalive connections. Last
time I looked, it was the latest
From: Greg Ames [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:46 PM
Sander Striker wrote:
I'll have some time tonight to tag _PRE3, which we should consider
to become .44.
I don't know how/what you are planning to tag, but I'd sure like to see my
server/core.c patch in
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 07:00 PM 1/7/2003, you wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should not be in here, please let me know ASAP
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
For something completely different, once this is released, we are stuck
with the api...
#define APR_FILEPATH_ENCODING_UNKNOWN 0
#define APR_FILEPATH_ENCODING_LOCALE 1
#define APR_FILEPATH_ENCODING_UTF8 2
APR_DECLARE(apr_status_t) apr_filepath_encoding(int
At 07:00 PM 1/7/2003, you wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should not be in here, please let me know ASAP.
What about the change in argument types for the APR
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 07:15, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Just an observation reviewing the apr/includes/ changes... I don't like the
look of this code;
+#define apr_atomic_casptr(mem,with,cmp) (void*)atomic_cmpxchg((unsigned long
*)(mem),(unsigned long)(cmp),(unsigned long)(with))
Very
, January 06, 2003 7:18:20 PM
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should not be in here, please let me know ASAP.
Please test this for the upcoming days. It would be really
nice to finally be able
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should not be in here, please let me know ASAP.
What about the change in argument types for the APR queue
and hash API? That's
-2.0/modules.
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/home/philip/compile/httpd-2.0.
*** Error code 1
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 02:18, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should
/home/philip/compile/httpd-2.0.
*** Error code 1
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 02:18, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should not be in here, please let me know
modules are auth_ldap, dav, dav_fs, rewrite.
Works OK so far. Proceeding to Subversion 0.16.1 ;-). Thank you!
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should not be in here
Hi,
I tagged the tree with STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE2. The tag consists
of APACHE_2_0_BRANCH and apr/apr-util HEAD. If you feel that
something should not be in here, please let me know ASAP.
Please test this for the upcoming days. It would be really
nice to finally be able to get this particular
From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 08 December 2002 00:13
* Sander Striker wrote:
I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
point out any problems.
uhm. docs-problem ;-)
Thanks for the heads up
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
point out any problems.
uhm. docs-problem ;-)
Thanks for the heads up. I'll correct this in the PRE2 tag.
Sorry for leaving
* Sander Striker wrote:
I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
point out any problems.
ehm perhaps a silly question: what apr, apr-util and apr-iconv will be
used? HEAD?
nd
--
sub the($){+shift} sub answer
From: André Malo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 07 December 2002 12:13
* Sander Striker wrote:
I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
point out any problems.
ehm perhaps a silly question: what apr, apr
* Sander Striker wrote:
I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
point out any problems.
uhm. docs-problem ;-)
I forgot to mention:
docs/manual/mod/directives.html.ja.jis (rev. 1.13)
I'm missing:
docs/manual
Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This tag builds for me and serves pages at the minimum. I'll
run the testsuite tomorrow.
I just rebuilt from the STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 tag and it works
perfectly on NetBSD/i386. The two problems i reported in the
last few days have been resolved.
--
This tag builds for me and serves pages at the minimum. I'll
run the testsuite tomorrow.
I built your tag tonight on my MacOSX 10.2 test box:
Darwin shadow.local. 6.1 Darwin Kernel Version 6.1: Fri Sep 6 23:24:34 PDT
2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.2.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
Built
Hi,
I tagged the 2.0 tree just yet as STRIKER_2_0_44_PRE1 in an
attempt to get the 2.0.44 show on the road. Please test and
point out any problems.
This tag builds for me and serves pages at the minimum. I'll
run the testsuite tomorrow.
Sander
PS. I forgot to commit Brian Havards patch
Hi,
I've tagged the tree as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE2. This tag includes
the following changes since the PRE1 tag:
* Apache.dsw
* Makefile.win
[tagged the APACHE_2_0_40 versions to include apr-iconv in the build]
* CHANGES
[this one needs to be fixed up for the final tag]
* acinclude.m4
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 10 September 2002 01:27
Sander ( Co)
with .40, we backed out the apr-iconv due to it's not-ready state,
with the attached patch.
I've been intending to get the openssl/iconv/zlib library linkage stubs
done for Win32,
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
[...]
Personally, I would just advocate shifting to Subversion. Part of our
release process injects the revision number into the header file. Thus, the
tarball always states *precisely* what revision the code came from.
FWIW; for perl5 perforce is used
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 11:21:33PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Um, the point is we don't want people testing the tags until they have
been blessed as an alpha.
Hunh? Of course we want people testing the code. I think the problem that
you're trying to avoid is people testing a tag named
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some
testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after
I get some positive feedback on this tag.
Greg, could you bump daedalus to this tag next week to see how
it holds?
Sure. I was swamped
What's the current status? Have we tagged for 2.0.41 yet or no? Will this be
happening today/tonight/early tomorrow morning? (IE, I'm installing
subversion and I'd PREFER to grab 2.0.41 and not head.)
On Saturday 07 September 2002 11:12 am, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree
Sander ( Co)
with .40, we backed out the apr-iconv due to it's not-ready state,
with the attached patch.
I've been intending to get the openssl/iconv/zlib library linkage stubs
done for Win32, but my time's been rather short. I should be able
to attack it late this week or early next
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 07:00:27PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote:
Generally, we do not create tarballs of tags, because the tags are meant
to be used by developers before the release is rolled. The problem with
tarballs, is that once they are created, they can be downloaded, and then
it is very
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- - Original Message -
From: Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Tagged the tree
If there are enough people like Chris who want snapshot-like
tarballs of development
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Chris Taylor wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- - Original Message -
From: Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Tagged the tree
If there are enough people like
Hi,
I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some
testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after
I get some positive feedback on this tag.
Greg, could you bump daedalus to this tag next week to see how
it holds?
Sander
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some
testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after
I get some positive feedback on this tag.
Thanks, Sander. I've tested this tag successfully with
the leader/follower and prefork MPMs
Brian Pane wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some
testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after
I get some positive feedback on this tag.
Thanks, Sander. I've tested this tag successfully with
the leader
] - PGP: http://www.x-bb.org/chris.asc
- - Original Message -
From: Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:12 PM
Subject: Tagged the tree
Hi,
I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some
testing
PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:12 PM
Subject: Tagged the tree
Hi,
I tagged the tree today as STRIKER_2_0_41_PRE1. I'll do some
testing this weekend myself and will retag for release after
I get some positive feedback on this tag.
Greg
, September 08, 2002 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Tagged the tree
Generally, we do not create tarballs of tags, because the tags are
meant to be used by developers before the release is rolled. The
problem with tarballs, is that once they are created, they can be
downloaded, and then it is very difficult
48 matches
Mail list logo
