On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Is there any way to accomplish w/o using notes? It's not that
they are especially slow, it's just that they aren't that fast
and, iirc, this could be a tight path.
Simpler solution commited in r1588519.
We don't have to
Hi,
this is the day of resurrections :p
I think I've got a simpler way to address this issue, that is, don't
send unexpected 100-continue to clients due to proxy ping feature.
Here is the patch.
Once again, please object if you don't want me to commit this stuff.
Reagrds,
Yann.
Index:
Is there any way to accomplish w/o using notes? It's not that
they are especially slow, it's just that they aren't that fast
and, iirc, this could be a tight path.
On Apr 4, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Yann Ylavic ylavic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
this is the day of resurrections :p
I think I've got
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Is there any way to accomplish w/o using notes? It's not that
they are especially slow, it's just that they aren't that fast
and, iirc, this could be a tight path.
There surely is, but we can't use the proxy_conn_rec for
This is a once-per-request query, so a note shouldn't be a bad thing.
But I'm wondering if we need a multi-state (and eventually, fold that
into 2.6/3.0 req_req instead)?
Many users have requested that mod_proxy honor -configured- proxypass
backends' 100 responses and defer the 100 response to
I peek this message from another thread and create a new one, since
details may not be relevant in the TR note.
On 11/12/2013 06:56 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:48:16 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I intend to TR 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's
an
I peek this message from another thread and create a new one, since
details may not be relevant in the TR note.
On 11/12/2013 06:56 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:48:16 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I intend to TR 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's
This will happen noon eastern.
On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I'll build w/ 2.67 and 1.5.26 for consistency.
I intend to TR 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's
an issue or problem...
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:48:16 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I intend to TR 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's
an issue or problem...
As I mentioned earlier, two additional patches should possibly be
considered for protocol correctness. The first you shepherded into
trunk, so
The only thing I worry about is that the below
patches aren't even in 2.4 yet, although maybe they
should be in the release-after-next.
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not
going
I think http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1527925
is also needed...
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
The only thing I worry about is that the below
patches aren't even in 2.4 yet, although maybe they
should be in the release-after-next.
Oh
On Tue Nov 12 11:25:57 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not
going to downgrade just to build 2.2 so if that is
*really* a concern, backed-up by the
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:25:57 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not
going to downgrade just to build 2.2 so if that is
*really* a
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:30:17 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I think http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1527925
is also needed...
Howso? APLOGNO() is specific to 2.4 and later.
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
On Tue Nov 12 11:25:57 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
still 100% valid autoconf/libtool setup. I am not
going to downgrade just
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
On Tue Nov 12 11:25:57 2013, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Oh yeah... I recall you had an issue with me building
because of potential issues with using a later, but
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:56:39 -0600
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:48:16 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
I intend to TR 2.2.26 tomorrow... post now if that's
an issue or problem...
As I mentioned earlier, two additional patches should
So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we
be baselining for 2.2.x?
On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Ben Reser b...@reser.org wrote:
On Tue Nov 12
I just added it to the backport proposal for
2.4... If there is sufficient support for adding
in 2.2 then I guess there will be enough for 2.4.
Go ahead and add to STATUS and we'll see...
On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:55 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:56:39
I'm assuming:
libtool: 1.5.26
autoconf: 2.61
On Nov 12, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we
be baselining for 2.2.x?
On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:22
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:00:52 -0500
Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we
be baselining for 2.2.x?
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:56:39 -0600
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Libtool 1.5.26 and autoconf 2.67 were used for 2.2.25
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
So what versions of autoconf and libtool should we
be baselining for 2.2.x?
autoconf: 2.2.24 and 2.2.25 used autoconf 2.67
libtool: I guess I don't know how to check that. Does it simply use the
apr libtool and have no
I'll build w/ 2.67 and 1.5.26 for consistency.
24 matches
Mail list logo
