On Oct 3, 2009, at 7:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org
wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Querna schrieb:
all the files are now sourced from svn:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/httpd/
woah, so that means all
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Roy T. Fielding field...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Oct 3, 2009, at 7:36 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Querna schrieb:
all the files are now sourced from
Thanks for your comments.
On Wednesday 23 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
--- modules/http/chunk_filter.c (Revision 818232)
+++ modules/http/chunk_filter.c (Arbeitskopie)
@@ -49,11 +49,11 @@
#define ASCII_CRLF \015\012
#define ASCII_ZERO \060
conn_rec *c = f-r-connection;
-
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 1:08 AM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Sun Oct 4 08:08:50 2009
New Revision: 821477
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821477view=rev
Log:
Make sure to not destroy bucket brigades that have been created by earlier
filters. Otherwise the pool cleanups
Hi,
I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
Considering the positive comments it received, may I put it into
modules/filter or should it go into modules/experimental first?
Cheers,
Stefan
[1] http://www.sfritsch.de/mod_reqtimeout/mod_reqtimeout.c
[2]
On 10/04/2009 09:37 AM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Sun Oct 4 07:37:28 2009
New Revision: 821471
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821471view=rev
Log:
core, mod_deflate, mod_sed: Reduce memory usage by reusing bucket
brigades in several places
Modified:
On 10/04/2009 09:37 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Thanks for your comments.
On Wednesday 23 September 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
What is the point here? tmp is always NULL when passed to
apr_brigade_split_ex so apr_brigade_split_ex == apr_brigade_split
You missed the tmp = b at the
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Paul Querna wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821477view=rev
Log:
Make sure to not destroy bucket brigades that have been created
by earlier filters. Otherwise the pool cleanups would be removed
causing potential memory leaks later on.
I am not
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
To be on the safe side we should do apr_brigade_cleanup(b) here.
Thanks. Fixed in r821481
On 10/04/2009 10:08 AM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sf
Date: Sun Oct 4 08:08:50 2009
New Revision: 821477
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821477view=rev
Log:
Make sure to not destroy bucket brigades that have been created by earlier
filters. Otherwise the pool cleanups would
On 10/04/2009 10:23 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
Considering the positive comments it received, may I put it into
modules/filter or should it go into modules/experimental first?
I guess experimental is a good starting
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core_filters.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/server/core_filters.c Sun Oct 4 08:08:50
2009
@@ -392,19 +392,21 @@
}
}
+if (new_bb != NULL) {
+bb = new_bb;
+}
+
+1
Rainer Jung wrote:
On 04.10.2009 10:23, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
I think it would be a useful addition.
Regards,
Rainer
On 10/04/2009 10:54 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Paul Querna wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821477view=rev
Log:
Make sure to not destroy bucket brigades that have been created
by earlier filters. Otherwise the pool cleanups would be removed
causing
On 4 Oct 2009, at 09:23, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Hi,
I would like to add mod_reqtimeout [1,2] to trunk. Is this OK?
Considering the positive comments it received, may I put it into
modules/filter or should it go into modules/experimental first?
experimental has been somewhat in limbo of
On 4 Oct 2009, at 11:14, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
From rereading the old discussion back in 2005 I guess it is the
correct
thing to fix the comment in util_filter.h and not to destroy
brigades that
weren't created by us but just to clean them up.
So the ownership of the brigade remains with
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
+ *) mod_cache: Fix uri_meets_conditions() so that CacheEnable will
+ match by scheme, or by a wildcarded hostname. PR 40169
+ [Ryan Pendergast rpender us.ibm.com http://us.ibm.com,
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:29 PM, fua...@apache.org wrote:
Author: fuankg
Date: Sun Oct 4 00:29:02 2009
New Revision: 821452
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821452view=rev
Log:
fixed log type prefix.
you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you; in that case
the
Jeff Trawick wrote:
My gut instinct when I see something odd is that I'd like to know what
that was for.
First off, I am not in a position to tell you why it was done like that,
that came from the original contributor, so I don't know why you were
asking me. Although having looked at it it is
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
+if (!(filter.port_str !filter.port_str[0])) {
+/* NOTE: ap_port_of_scheme will return 0 if given NULL input */
+const unsigned fport = filter.port_str ? filter.port
+: apr_uri_port_of_scheme(filter.scheme);
+
On 10/04/2009 03:40 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
+if (!(filter.port_str !filter.port_str[0])) {
+/* NOTE: ap_port_of_scheme will return 0 if given NULL input
*/
+const unsigned fport = filter.port_str ? filter.port
+
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Where?
The default handler in the core calls it explicitly and
mod_cgi / mod_cgid / mod_asis do so via ap_scan_script_header_err
Sorry, you're right - ap_meets_conditions() does need to be called
explicitly.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
I'm sorry. It was a stupid question :)
Of course I can define any value less than APR_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST.
--- On Sat, 10/3/09, Eldar Gaynetdinov hal9000e...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Eldar Gaynetdinov hal9000e...@yahoo.com
Subject: Controlling hook calling order in Apache 2.x
To:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
My gut instinct when I see something odd is that I'd like to know what
that was for.
First off, I am not in a position to tell you why it was done like that,
that came from the original
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Eldar Gaynetdinov hal9000e...@yahoo.comwrote:
I'm sorry. It was a stupid question :)
Of course I can define any value less than APR_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST.
Well, I started to say that but I find it hard to offer such advice without
asking what the heck you need to
On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03.10.2009 14:54, j...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jim
Date: Sat Oct 3 12:54:35 2009
New Revision: 821307
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=821307view=rev
Log:
Provide new ap_update_child_status_from_conn() mostly
for use with
Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual
code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg:
Timeout 30 5 10 2
which define timeout as now, timeout before 1st byte, timeout
between bytes timeout after etc...
We've always wanted better control over this ind timeouts and
putting
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Eldar Gaynetdinov
hal9000e...@yahoo.com mailto:hal9000e...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm sorry. It was a stupid question :)
Of course I can define any value less than APR_HOOK_REALLY_FIRST.
Well, I started to say that but I find it
Especially if you know your hook will run in front of (or
after) a particular
hook entry, before and after arguments to the register
function can help you
with that sort of ordering.
I know about this possibility but I want write hooks which will called first
and last. I need to measure CPU
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
-1, until we have votes for a beta/almost GA from trunk, -or-
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
-1, until we have votes for a
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual
code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg:
Timeout 30 5 10 2
which define timeout as now, timeout before 1st byte, timeout
between bytes timeout after etc...
We've always
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual
code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg:
Timeout 30 5 10 2
which define timeout as now, timeout before 1st byte, timeout
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
-1,
Jim Jagielski wrote:
And I would prefer several config directives instead of having to
remember which value in Timeout means what.
Well, I'm not a big fan of directive creep, but I see your point
and agree with it in a general sense.
Timeout Thistimeout=10 Thattimeout=2 Othertimeout=300 ?
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see this as part of the actual
code core, where we have several Timeouts, eg:
Timeout 30 5 10 2
which define timeout as now, timeout
On Sunday 04 October 2009, Nick Kew wrote:
FWIW, IMO it should go in modules/filters not experimental.
+1. trunk is, by definition, experimental. But when we
float off 2.3/4-branch, we should perhaps do some documentation
of stability levels of different features and modules for users.
I
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on
On 10/04/2009 06:23 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03.10.2009 14:54, j...@apache.org wrote:
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/server/scoreboard.c (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/server/scoreboard.c Sat Oct 3 12:54:35 2009
@@ -490,6 +492,19 @@
Paul Querna wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Yep. My only fear, as you state, is without some clear consensus that
we want to get a 2.4 out sometime soon, we will be stuck in that
never-ending loop of polishing the turd. ;)
start cutting alpha
Hi,
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you; in that
case the commit log should show
Submitted by: xxx yyy xxx zzz.com http://zzz.com
Reviewed by: (you)
I know, I know; but my friend always prefers to stay anonymous, and
wants to get me blamed for
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you; in that
case the commit log should show
Submitted by: xxx yyy xxx zzz.com http://zzz.com
Reviewed by: (you)
I know, I know; but my friend always prefers to stay anonymous, and
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
If your anonymous friend does not have a CLA on file, you must revert; that is
a condition you accepted, signing your own CLA.
huh? and this condition changes if I write his name and email address
into logs?
Gün.
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
If your anonymous friend does not have a CLA on file, you must revert;
that is
a condition you accepted, signing your own CLA.
huh? and this condition changes if I write his name and
Hi Guys,
I am using apache2, php5 and mod_fcgid on CentOS and I'm having a lot
of issues with 500 errors. I came across this blog post:
http://jay.vox.com/library/post/mod_fcgid-ignoring-fastcgi-config-settings.html
I was wondering if that is completely true? And if it is, why is it
that way?
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Walter Heck walterh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Guys,
I am using apache2, php5 and mod_fcgid on CentOS and I'm having a lot
of issues with 500 errors. I came across this blog post:
http://jay.vox.com/library/post/mod_fcgid-ignoring-fastcgi-config-settings.html
I
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you;
in that
case the commit log should show
Submitted by: xxx yyy xxx zzz.com http://zzz.com
Reviewed by: (you)
I know, I
Hi Jeff,
thanks for the quick response!
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 06:09, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
That's fixed in the mod_fcgid in Subversion. See the Get It! information
at http://httpd.apache.org/mod_fcgid/ for how to check out from Subversion.
That particular issue wasn't fixed
On Saturday 03 October 2009 12:44:02 pm Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
(just fixing subject)
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Ricardo Cantu rica...@smartcsc.comwrote:
On Tuesday 29 September 2009 4:20:49 pm you wrote:
On Tue,
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Walter Heck walterh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jeff,
thanks for the quick response!
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 06:09, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
That's fixed in the mod_fcgid in Subversion. See the Get It!
information
at
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:57 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
Jeff Trawick schrieb:
you mentioned in another thread that somebody sent this to you; in that
case the commit log should show
Submitted by: xxx yyy xxx zzz.com http://zzz.com
Reviewed
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
But since his comment, my friend always prefers to stay anonymous implied
more
than this single patch, it seems appropriate to call out the general concern.
you got this wrong - I meant that he prefers so at all other places too,
and not that he sends me tons of
Guenter Knauf wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
But since his comment, my friend always prefers to stay anonymous implied
more
than this single patch, it seems appropriate to call out the general concern.
you got this wrong - I meant that he prefers so at all other places too,
and not
Hi,
every now and then I get asked about why Apache doesnt start, and it
always turns out that folks try to load 2.0.x modules into 2.2.x, or
even 1.3.x modules into 2.0.x ...
therefore I posted already about 4 years this on my site:
http://www.gknw.net/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=88
so that I only need
55 matches
Mail list logo
