On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:45:00AM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
This should do the trick. I'm testing with the mp2 test suite now.
Works for me with httpd-test - thanks a lot!
Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:45:00AM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote:
This should do the trick. I'm testing with the mp2 test suite now.
Works for me with httpd-test - thanks a lot!
Excellent :) I've already committed the fix.
Jim Jagielski wrote (on 4/28/2004):
The TR of 1.3.31 will be done within the next day or 2 with a
formal release likely early next week.
Any update on plans?
--
Jess Holle
Via:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'd like to announce and release the 11th.
pid_t is long on Solaris
Index: src/modules/standard/mod_log_forensic.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/modules/standard/mod_log_forensic.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -r1.7 mod_log_forensic.c
---
a small head start for debugging crashes... usefulness changes with platform
and build options...
Index: src/modules/experimental/mod_whatkilledus.c
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/apache-1.3/src/modules/experimental/mod_whatkilledus.c,v
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
* When UseCanonicalName is set to OFF, allow ap_get_server_port to
check r-connection-local_addr-port before defaulting to
server-port or ap_default_port()
server/core.c r1.247
+1: bnicholes, jim
0: nd, jerenkrantz
nd: can the
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 01:49:45PM -0400, Brian Akins wrote:
Any reason why we can't bring back the Port option or somehow
designate a canonical port. In our environment, our load balancers
send traffic to some port besides 80, but all redirects should instruct
the client to use port 80
The URL has been posted on slashdot :-(
Joshua.
* Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The URL has been posted on slashdot :-(
:-( I'd say, let's move it away. It's not released yet. period.
nd
--
print Just Another Perl Hacker;
# André Malo, http://pub.perlig.de/ #
* Joshua Slive [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|__ Fri, May 07, 2004 at 03:14:08PM -0400:
The URL has been posted on slashdot :-(
Oh no. It's not official yet. :-/
--
Chip Cuccio| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NORLUG VP and Sysadmin | http://norlug.org/~chipster/
Northfield Linux Users'
On May 7, 2004, at 8:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Via:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'd like to announce and release the 11th.
Except Slashdot beat you to the punch: http://apache.slashdot.org/.
S.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A
I have made the tarballs unavailable from the below URL. People
should contact me directly to obtain the correct URL...
Sander Temme wrote:
--Apple-Mail-1-423850141
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
On May 7, 2004,
Mads Toftum wrote:
Wouldn't adding the port to ServerName be what you need?
ServerName example.com:80
Iirc it is even suggested in the docs.
AFAIK, that only works when usecanonical names is on. Otherwise, it just uses what the client sends.
--
Brian Akins
Senior Systems Engineer
CNN
In the 2.1 STATUS file we see:
* When UseCanonicalName is set to OFF, allow ap_get_server_port to
check r-connection-local_addr-port before defaulting to
server-port or ap_default_port()
This is, in fact, the behavior in 1.3.31... The idea being
that with UseCanonicalName Off, we
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I have made the tarballs unavailable from the below URL. People
should contact me directly to obtain the correct URL...
I'd like to give it a testing shoot for the cygwin platform on recent
cygwin 1.5.x versions. Can you drop me an URL for it Jim please?
Stipe
Why is it bad if people download the RC version and
test it? Frankly, I really don't mind if slashdot or anyone
else broadcasts that we have an RC tarball available.
If anything it's a good thing. We don't make any guarantees
about our code anyway, so whether or not we call it a GA
release is just
The trouble is that we need to perform *some* sort of quality
control out there... The option is as soon as we have a tarball
out, it's immediately released, in which case why even bother
with a test or RC candidate. We need to, IMO, impose some
sort of order and process on how we release s/w, and
* Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it bad if people download the RC version and
test it?
Frankly, I really don't mind if slashdot or anyone
else broadcasts that we have an RC tarball available.
Our traffic fee does anyway. RC stuff in /dev/dist/ is not mirrored.
nd
--
On Fri, 7 May 2004, Aaron Bannert wrote:
Why is it bad if people download the RC version and
test it? Frankly, I really don't mind if slashdot or anyone
else broadcasts that we have an RC tarball available.
The problem was that they called it a release, not an RC. I added the
header.html to
I believe that a strict QA process actually hurts the quality
of OSS projects like Apache. We have a gigantic pool of
talented users who would love to give us a hand by testing
our latest and greatest in every contorted way imaginable.
But we're holding out on them. We're saying that we know
FWIW, we're currently only using half of our allocated bandwidth.
If RC distributions become a bandwidth problem, we can think
about mirroring then (wouldn't that be a great problem to have
though?)
-aaron
On May 7, 2004, at 7:05 PM, André Malo wrote:
* Aaron Bannert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron Bannert wrote:
I believe that a strict QA process actually hurts the quality
of OSS projects like Apache. We have a gigantic pool of
talented users who would love to give us a hand by testing
I agree, but there is also a protocol to follow. If a user
is interested in testing, they should
On May 7, 2004, at 7:26 PM, Aaron Bannert wrote:
But we're holding out on them. We're saying that we know
better than they do. I don't think we do. Sure, we should be
In a way, we're holding out on them. However, I believe that a couple
of days time to sanity check an RC is IMHO not a bad thing.
24 matches
Mail list logo
