On 10/09/2015 05:11 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
I have no real recommendation for you but the RFC states all
implementations must support
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 or OpenSSL's equivalent
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256.
So it's a starting point.
Perfect! After pulling it up front with
Hi Jacob,
On 10/9/2015 4:47 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
Stefan,
I'm trying to test mod_http2 for the 2.4.17 release, but I cannot for
the life of me get ALPN and the h2 protocol working together. h2c
seems to work, as does http/1.1 over TLS. My hope is that I'm just
missing a config directive s
Stefan,
I'm trying to test mod_http2 for the 2.4.17 release, but I cannot for
the life of me get ALPN and the h2 protocol working together. h2c seems
to work, as does http/1.1 over TLS. My hope is that I'm just missing a
config directive somewhere; can anyone else confirm that h2 negotiation
On 10/9/2015 10:40 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.17 can be found
at the usual place:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.17 GA.
Not a vote, I haven't gotten that far yet. It's been poin
On 10/09/2015 07:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.17 can be found
> at the usual place:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.17 GA.
>
> [ ] +1: Good to go
> [ ] +0: meh
> [ ] -1:
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.4.17 can be found
at the usual place:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.17 GA.
[ ] +1: Good to go
[ ] +0: meh
[ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
Vote will last the normal 72 hr
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 7:59 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> On 08 Oct 2015, at 1:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Yeah... it was 'always' foreseen that mod_h2/mod_http2 would provide
>> useful clues on how to make 2.6/3.0 better, especially w/ the idea of
>> slave connections; basically, as you sa
The T&R will happen today around 1:30pm eastern, which is ~1.5hrs from
'now'...
FYI: last checkins for mod_http2 are not intended for 2.4.17
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Or send GH mails to bugs@ similar to the BZ workflow?
Looks like good (and simple) way to have even further contributors
(which is never bad).
Daniel seems to say it's quite easy to do at infra level (including
two-way integration, i.e. repl
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:00:22PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:42:44PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Rainer Jung
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Or send GH mails to bugs@ similar to the
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:42:44PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> >
>> > Or send GH mails to bugs@ similar to the BZ workflow?
>>
>> That would be equally valuable, and probably simpler.
>
>
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:42:44PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> >
> > Or send GH mails to bugs@ similar to the BZ workflow?
>
> That would be equally valuable, and probably simpler.
And less noisy for those who would rather avoid the automated
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Or send GH mails to bugs@ similar to the BZ workflow?
That would be equally valuable, and probably simpler.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 11:12 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> Could they somehow be sent to dev@, or is there legal issues?
>>
> No, nothing legal there...
ISTM that for patches to be donated-to/acceptable-by the ASF, they
must be sent to either bugs@ or dev
Am 09.10.2015 um 12:00 schrieb Nick Kew:
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 11:12 +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
Could they somehow be sent to dev@, or is there legal issues?
Bugzilla activity doesn't get sent to dev@, even when
it involves PatchAvailable (kind-of equivalent to a
Pull Request, yesno)?
If we we
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Nick Kew [mailto:n...@webthing.com]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Oktober 2015 12:01
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: GitHub (mirror) pull requests notifications
>
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 11:12 +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> > Could they somehow be sent
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 11:12 +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Could they somehow be sent to dev@, or is there legal issues?
Bugzilla activity doesn't get sent to dev@, even when
it involves PatchAvailable (kind-of equivalent to a
Pull Request, yesno)?
If we were to propagate pull requests, we should pe
On 10/09/2015 11:12 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Could they somehow be sent to dev@, or is there legal issues?
>
No, nothing legal there...just that people didn't want GH integration ;)
If there's a desire to have it enabled, we can make it so..
With regards,
Daniel.
Could they somehow be sent to dev@, or is there legal issues?
20 matches
Mail list logo
