On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:36:06PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
static apr_status_t base10_strtoff(apr_off_t *offset, const char *buf,
char **endptr)
{
const char *last;
*offset = apr_atoi64(buf);
I think this needs to DTRT with a 32-bit off_t.
How
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:36:06PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
static apr_status_t base10_strtoff(apr_off_t *offset, const char *buf,
char **endptr)
{
const char *last;
*offset =
Can anyone formally +1 the 2.2.14 and 2.2.19 patches on this thread
for promotion to apply_to?
I put the 2.0.x patch in 2.0.x/STATUS, as the code needs to be
committed first before being made available as a patch.
Same here…
On Sep 9, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:36:06PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
static apr_status_t base10_strtoff(apr_off_t *offset, const char *buf,
Patch applied and committed…
On Sep 9, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Same here…
On Sep 9, 2011, at 6:54 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:36:06PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
static apr_status_t
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what I have at present:
http://people.apache.org/~trawick/2.2.20-byterange-fixes.txt
(compiled-in max ranges, uses same AP_ symbol as 2.2.21 even though
the compiled-in version isn't the same type of DEFAULT)
See
On 9/8/2011 11:44 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what I have at present:
http://people.apache.org/~trawick/2.2.20-byterange-fixes.txt
(compiled-in max ranges, uses same AP_ symbol as 2.2.21 even though
the compiled-in
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 9/8/2011 11:44 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what I have at present:
http://people.apache.org/~trawick/2.2.20-byterange-fixes.txt
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 9/8/2011 11:44 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what I have at present:
On 9/8/2011 1:45 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On the 2.0 side, nothings changed since 2.0.55 that should break the patch.
BTW, do any of us have an updated 2.0 patch to reflect the important
changes since last weekend? If not, I'll need to work on thatin the
short term.
I'm happy to help late
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 9/8/2011 1:45 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On the 2.0 side, nothings changed since 2.0.55 that should break the patch.
BTW, do any of us have an updated 2.0 patch to reflect the important
changes since last weekend?
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 9/8/2011 1:45 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On the 2.0 side, nothings changed since 2.0.55 that should break the patch.
BTW, do any of us have
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net
wrote:
On 9/8/2011 1:45 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On the 2.0 side, nothings
13 matches
Mail list logo
