On 06/30/2017 11:40 AM, Jacob Champion wrote:
As far as I can tell it has no downsides, so my only request is that we
add it to CHANGES (or some documentation, somewhere) and get a test in
place before it goes back in. I may be able to get to that later this
afternoon.
This is taking me
On 06/30/2017 09:43 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
In any case, I think HEAD of the perl test framework is finally in
shape to test and catch expectations regarding how we
handle FCGI env-vars, both in "generic" situations as well
as how php-fpm sees/expects them. At least, the current
rev "passes"
On 06/30/2017 08:41 AM, Jacob Champion wrote:
On 06/30/2017 08:37 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Well, in 2.4.26 is WAS/IS an entry in notes available to modules
Well... hm. I guess that's a valid point. My preference is still to
remove it since it's undocumented, but if anyone else would like to
In any case, I think HEAD of the perl test framework is finally in
shape to test and catch expectations regarding how we
handle FCGI env-vars, both in "generic" situations as well
as how php-fpm sees/expects them. At least, the current
rev "passes" all tests based on my assumptions on what
those
> On Jun 30, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>> Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special?
>
> It fixes a regression in the last release, I think it's close
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special?
It fixes a regression in the last release, I think it's close enough
in spirit as a showstopper.
On 06/30/2017 08:37 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Well, in 2.4.26 is WAS/IS an entry in notes available to modules
Well... hm. I guess that's a valid point. My preference is still to
remove it since it's undocumented, but if anyone else would like to see
it back in, I'm fine with that.
Other
2017-06-30 17:34 GMT+02:00 Jacob Champion :
> On 06/30/2017 08:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
>> -1 on showstopper. It's a bug, no security implications, cope with it.
>>
>> Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special?
>>
>
> It's a reinstatement of my
Well, in 2.4.26 is WAS/IS an entry in notes available to modules,
and since we don't know who/what may not being using or expecting
it, and since it's useful info anyway and not a performance hit,
it seems "prudent" to me. But I'm fine either way.
> On Jun 30, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Jacob Champion
On 06/30/2017 08:10 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
-1 on showstopper. It's a bug, no security implications, cope with it.
Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special?
It's a reinstatement of my previous 2.4.26 showstopper, which got no
objections, was unaddressed by the
On 06/30/2017 05:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I still think that the below has value and should not be/have-been
reverted.
I'm not arguing that it doesn't have value in theory, but IMO it doesn't
belong in 2.4.x without a client. Right now it's just dead code.
Anyone opposed to me re-adding
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> Kudos to jim and jchampion on these tests!
Clearly!
-1 on showstopper. It's a bug, no security implications, cope with it.
Thousands of bugs pass through STATUS, what makes yours special?
That said, unconditional +1 to any mod_proxy_fcgi.c patches you or Jim or
any committers determine for backport, I'd prefer we treat the module as
experimental
Kudos to jim and jchampion on these tests!
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM, wrote:
> Author: jim
> Date: Fri Jun 30 14:55:33 2017
> New Revision: 1800428
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1800428=rev
> Log:
> Ensure we are testing via FPM BackendType w/ the actual
>
unsubscribe
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I still think that the below has value and should not be/have-been
> reverted.
>
> Anyone opposed to me re-adding it to trunk and removing it
> from the backport proposal?
Would an fcgi query it and look at
I still think that the below has value and should not be/have-been
reverted.
Anyone opposed to me re-adding it to trunk and removing it
from the backport proposal?
> On Jun 29, 2017, at 1:43 PM, jchamp...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/mappers/mod_actions.c
> URL:
>
> Am 30.06.2017 um 13:33 schrieb Yann Ylavic :
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>
>> On 06/30/2017 12:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO mod_ssl shoudn't (BIO_)flush unconditionally in
>>> modssl_smart_shutdown(), only in
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> On 06/30/2017 12:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>>
>> IMHO mod_ssl shoudn't (BIO_)flush unconditionally in
>> modssl_smart_shutdown(), only in the "abortive" mode of
>> ssl_filter_io_shutdown().
>
> I think the issue starts
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Luca Toscano wrote:
>
> 2017-06-30 12:18 GMT+02:00 Yann Ylavic :
>> >
>> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1706669
>> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1734656
>> >
>> > IIUC these ones are meant
On 06/30/2017 12:18 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Hi Luca,
>
> [better/easier to talk about details on dev@]
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60956
>>
>> --- Comment #11 from Luca Toscano
Hi Yann!
2017-06-30 12:18 GMT+02:00 Yann Ylavic :
> Hi Luca,
>
> [better/easier to talk about details on dev@]
>
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
> > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60956
> >
> > --- Comment #11 from Luca
Hi Luca,
[better/easier to talk about details on dev@]
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:05 AM, wrote:
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60956
>
> --- Comment #11 from Luca Toscano ---
> Other two interesting trunk improvements that have
23 matches
Mail list logo