Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.2.33

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:11 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > I'd like to know that there is another binding vote before bothering to > reroll. If the interest disappated faster than expected, that's fine. > Assuming your request was an implicit intent to vote on the requested

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.2.33

I'd like to know that there is another binding vote before bothering to reroll. If the interest disappated faster than expected, that's fine. Assuming your request was an implicit intent to vote on the requested reroll. I thought this bug was more complex, but put all my other concerns aside, we

Re: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 06/20/2017 02:19 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> >> Here's why I'm asking: if I were to propose the attached patch for >> backport, what is the test case that *should* fail but doesn't? >> (proxy_fcgi.t passes, no

RE: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Thanks! That’s exactly the kind of ballpark I was hoping to hear. ☺ From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:15 PM To: httpd Subject: RE: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS On Jun 27, 2017 12:08 PM,

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.2.33

On 06/27/2017 10:21 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: If voters would rather that I address https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61220 and reroll, I'm fine with that. I think that would be good, since we're planning to make this the Final Release. --Jacob

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.2.33

On Jun 23, 2017 5:19 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: For your consideration... pre-release candidate tarballs of Apache legacy httpd 2.2.33 can be found in; http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ Thanks all who merged the security work in and other fixes. As we picked end of

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.2.33

Thanks Petr, every review and evaluation is appreciated! On Jun 26, 2017 8:46 AM, "Petr Gajdos" wrote: On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:19:47PM -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > For your consideration... pre-release candidate tarballs of > Apache legacy httpd 2.2.33 can be found in;

RE: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

On Jun 27, 2017 12:08 PM, "Moradhassel, Kavian" wrote: Did this discussion result in a decision to provide a fix for the bug in 2.4.26 and plan for a 2.4.27 soon? I'm wondering if I should be waiting for a 2.4.27 in the next handful of weeks, or if I should just accept that

Re: Anonymizing 403 responses [Was: svn commit: r1799731]

On Jun 27, 2017 3:00 AM, "Yann" wrote: On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:49 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Yann wrote:

RE: svn commit: r1782209 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

Did this discussion result in a decision to provide a fix for the bug in 2.4.26 and plan for a 2.4.27 soon? I'm wondering if I should be waiting for a 2.4.27 in the next handful of weeks, or if I should just accept that 2.4.26 has a bug that we need to work around... Thanks! -Original

Re: svn commit: r1800050 - in /httpd/test/framework/trunk: scripts/uds-test.pl t/modules/proxy.t

On 06/27/2017 04:39 AM, j...@apache.org wrote: Author: jim Date: Tue Jun 27 11:39:02 2017 New Revision: 1800050 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1800050=rev Log: Make this self-contained... Should really pull do_do_run_run out :) Removed:

Re: svn commit: r1800066 - in /httpd/test/framework/trunk: Misc.pm t/modules/proxy_fcgi.t

On 06/27/2017 07:28 AM, j...@apache.org wrote: Author: jim Date: Tue Jun 27 14:28:50 2017 New Revision: 1800066 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1800066=rev Log: Re-use the runner sub function... Modified: httpd/test/framework/trunk/Misc.pm

Re: Anonymizing 403 responses [Was: svn commit: r1799731]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:49 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Yann wrote: >> >>> What could be the "security blunders" with 404 vs 403?