Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
I documented a woraround for the problem of short proxy URLs in BZ53218.
It should be applicable in many cases.
It is based
.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN
All the changes we did regarding the sizes date back before branching 2.4.x
Regards
Rüdiger
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. September 2014 12:20
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
Regards
Rüdiger
rj...@apache.org wrote:
Author: rjung
Date: Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014
New Revision: 1622429
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1622429
Log:
Propose.
Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
Bummer, I guess you are right. mod_proxy.h seems to be part of the
public API so we can't backport like this. Will revoke the
As long as we bump mmn, we should be OK.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
Regards
Rüdiger
rj...@apache.org wrote:
Author:
I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN...
On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets
inside the struct.
commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN...
On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
True, but if we bump the mmn, that should cover it.
I know of no-one other than httpd that uses
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:58
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Can we really
Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN...
On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung
:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:58
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Can we really backport this?
We
branches.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN
13 matches
Mail list logo
