On Apr 5, 2005 7:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Tue Apr 5 16:31:30 2005
> New Revision: 160240
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=160240
> Log:
> Tested and voted
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS
> *) several changes
Paul Querna wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
How is this worthless? IIUC, the unix mpm's announce the
creation of each worker.
Worker, Prefork and Event do not.
Correct. Only Windows logs a debug message for each and every thread created. I added these two debug messages
to winnt_mpm a couple
Sander Striker wrote:
Hi guys,
It's been almost 2 months since 2.0.53. Think it is time for 2.0.54 yet?
I'll volunteer to RM if that is a yes ;)
Just a heads up: I'm planning on starting the T&R of 2.0.54 on thursday
night
(UTC +1). I would be thankful if someone could start backporting the sugg
What makes matters worse is that the update-apache2-script that apache2
comes with in Debian doesn't seem to work in any situation I've tried
it in (or maybe I'm just not using it right), rendering the entire
configuration confusing for no substantial reason.
That being said, the idea behind the D
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:38:44AM -0400, Paul A. Houle wrote:
>
>>...
>> There are good operational reasons to split up configuration in
>> different files -- if the Apache install can encourage good practices,
>>
>>based on the decade of experience we've had w
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
How is this worthless? IIUC, the unix mpm's announce the
creation of each worker.
Worker, Prefork and Event do not.
How is this worthless? IIUC, the unix mpm's announce the
creation of each worker. This should remain consistant,
however if I'm mistaken, ignore me.
Bill
At 02:01 PM 4/5/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Author: stoddard
>Date: Tue Apr 5 12:01:09 2005
>New Revision: 160209
>
>URL: http://svn.apa
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:38:44AM -0400, Paul A. Houle wrote:
>...
> There are good operational reasons to split up configuration in
> different files -- if the Apache install can encourage good practices,
>
> based on the decade of experience we've had with it, that's a good th
Admittedly, there are times when having multiple conf files
and conf directories makes things much easier. Other
time, more difficult. But that is a SysAdmin decision.
We should keep with one-true config file for defaults.
On Apr 2, 2005 2:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05:45 AM 4/2/2005, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >On Apr 1, 2005 2:17 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> At 09:16 AM 4/1/2005, Eric Covener wrote:
> >
> >> >Attempt at a patch using CriticalSection instead of
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:01:34 -0700, Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, but I very much disagree. I think back to the old days of
access.conf, httpd.conf, and srm.conf. As an administrator, I absolutely
detested that layout. I could NEVER figure out which file a given
configuration was in.
On Apr 4, 2005 2:33 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Monday, April 4, 2005 1:21 PM -0400 Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > fairly common to have two web server instances using same ServerRoot;
> > that's another case to use LockFile, so that difference instance
12 matches
Mail list logo
