On 08.05.2018 19:24, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 08.05.2018 18:52, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On May 8, 2018, at 10:34, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 08.05.2018 17:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 07.05.2018 15:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On May 3, 2018, at 15:11, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> I think
On 08.05.2018 18:52, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On May 8, 2018, at 10:34, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 08.05.2018 17:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 07.05.2018 15:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On May 3, 2018, at 15:11, Branko Čibej wrote:
> I think there are more than enough improvements on
On May 8, 2018, at 10:34, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 08.05.2018 17:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 07.05.2018 15:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> On May 3, 2018, at 15:11, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>
I think there are more than enough improvements on trunk[1] to warrant a
new release; whether
Author: ivan
Date: Tue May 8 16:02:50 2018
New Revision: 1831197
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1831197=rev
Log:
* CHANGES
(1.4.0): Remove entry for r1699914 since it was reverted in r1831196.
Modified:
serf/trunk/CHANGES
Modified: serf/trunk/CHANGES
URL:
Author: ivan
Revision: 1699914
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Tue May 8 15:50:53 2018
--
--- svn:log (original)
+++ svn:log Tue May 8 15:50:53 2018
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+*** Reverted in r1831196 ***
+
Fix
On 17 June 2014 at 12:08, Michael -O <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Is that really good to do?
>
> We have several host which would not work anymore with such a fix. Here are
> two usecases:
>
> 1. app.company.com CNAME, RDNS servername.company.net, HTTP/app.company.com
> exist.
> 2. Load balancing
Author: ivan
Date: Tue May 8 15:48:53 2018
New Revision: 1831196
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1831196=rev
Log:
Revert r1699914 (try use reverse DNS to resolve canonical name for SPN). While
the new behavior fixes issue with NTLM authentication to localhost, it may
break common existing
On 08.05.2018 17:18, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 07.05.2018 15:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On May 3, 2018, at 15:11, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>
>>> I think there are more than enough improvements on trunk[1] to warrant a
>>> new release; whether that's called 1.4.0 or 2.0 (which is the current
>>> trunk
On 07.05.2018 15:11, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On May 3, 2018, at 15:11, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> I think there are more than enough improvements on trunk[1] to warrant a
>> new release; whether that's called 1.4.0 or 2.0 (which is the current
>> trunk version) doesn't really matter; but more than a
