On Jun 20, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Michael Felt wrote:
> Here is the patch - as text, and a file (not sure what normal is, but since
> it is small doing both).
So - I looked at what you did here, and then compared it both against what’s in
httpd-2.4.x and httpd-trunk.
What happens when you use the
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> doc should also be updated accordingly + compatibility note should be
>> added to state in which version this -m option has been added.
>
>
> Thanks for no
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Marion & Christophe JAILLET <
christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> doc should also be updated accordingly + compatibility note should be
> added to state in which version this -m option has been added.
>
Thanks for noting this. We shouldn't have voted
Hi,
doc should also be updated accordingly + compatibility note should be
added to state in which version this -m option has been added.
For your information,, I have a pending patch on my computer for missing
compatibility notes in "support" applications updated in previous releases.
Will
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> was the proxy_util.c change intended?
Yes, this is to avoid another (useless) socket_cleanup() + close = 0 below.
was the proxy_util.c change intended?
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:39 AM, wrote:
> Author: ylavic
> Date: Thu Feb 27 13:39:25 2014
> New Revision: 1572561
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1572561
> Log:
> Avoid seless functions calls.
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy_ht
On 19.06.2014 23:17, Joe Orton wrote:
> I was reminded that there was a request to use the larger key sizes as
> well.
Using ephemeral DH keys with sizes > 4096 bits in TLS seems way overkill
for the next decade or so (3072 bits are already considered to have a
128-bit symmetric-key strength), bu
