On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:15:46PM +0300, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> Unless I am missing something, this might be worth considering before the
> 1.10 GA release.
Evgeny, you were entirely right about calling this out as a release blocker.
I am sorry for having suggested otherwise.
On 02.03.2018 19:21, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I am just questioning the usefulness of halting the presses and restarting
> the soak for another month for something that isn't a security / data
> corruption issue.
It's a potential DOS that only needs read access. Falls under security
by my definiti
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 07:21:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I am just questioning the usefulness of halting the presses and restarting
> the soak for another month for something that isn't a security / data
> corruption issue. I anticipate that problems of similar severity to this
> one will
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:02:02PM +0300, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> Stefan Sperling writes:
>
> > I'd rather ship 1.10.0 at the prospected release date followed closely
> > by 1.10.1 to fix bugs such as these, than delay general access to 1.10.0
> > even further.
>
> While I do not have significant
Stefan Sperling writes:
> I'd rather ship 1.10.0 at the prospected release date followed closely
> by 1.10.1 to fix bugs such as these, than delay general access to 1.10.0
> even further.
While I do not have significant objections against such plan, I find the
idea of shipping a performance feat
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:15:46PM +0300, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> Unless I am missing something, this might be worth considering before the
> 1.10 GA release.
Not about the actual bug, just a meta comment on the process:
I'd rather ship 1.10.0 at the prospected release date followed closely
by 1.1
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> Would it be possible for you to bisect this to find the offending revision?
> My random guess would be that in the context of mod_dav_svn, we might use
> an unsuitable pool for authz caching.
While looking through the various 1.10-related topics, I remembered about
this
On 05.12.2017 22:05, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
Julian Foad writes:
After any issues raised in this discussion are resolved, we feel we should
go ahead and produce RC1 as soon as possible.
I think that I am seeing a 1.10 regression in terms of httpd's memory
usage during large imports.
In my envi
Julian Foad writes:
> After any issues raised in this discussion are resolved, we feel we should
> go ahead and produce RC1 as soon as possible.
I think that I am seeing a 1.10 regression in terms of httpd's memory
usage during large imports.
In my environment, when I `svn import` an unpacked v
9 matches
Mail list logo