On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Am 30.11.2011 01:51, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 11/29/2011 5:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Currently my scripts produces:
http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-numbers.diff
http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-numbers.list
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Mikhail T. wrote:
On 29.11.2011 23:30, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
But my point remains, that we allocate each module a block of
some 50 codes, such that mod_aaa gets AHM-0049 and mod_aab
gets 50-99, etc.
How will 3rd-party modules be getting their
ap_log_error(..., APLOGNO(0815) foo went wrong, ...);
great idea on avoiding svn.a.o search hits.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 01:09, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Am 30.11.2011 01:51, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 11/29/2011 5:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Currently my scripts produces:
- Original Message -
Author: minfrin
Date: Wed Nov 30 11:21:43 2011
New Revision: 1208384
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1208384view=rev
Log:
mod_cache: Revert
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1070179
as per the following thread:
On 23 Nov 2011, at 1:15 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
In order to make invalidation possible, we would need to add an invalidate()
function to the mod_cache provider, and keep AP_CACHE_INVALIDATE inside
ap_cache_status_e. Invalidation involves marking the entry as invalidated and
to be
On 30 Nov 2011, at 1:26 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
- Original Message -
Author: minfrin
Date: Wed Nov 30 11:21:43 2011
New Revision: 1208384
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1208384view=rev
Log:
mod_cache: Revert
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1070179
as per
On 11/30/2011 2:09 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Another thought: Would having the AH0815 numbers verbatim in the
source actually hurt search engine users because they get hits on
svn.apache.org, github, and whatever. Maybe a macro that hides the
actual form would be better?
#define
On Nov 29, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.h Tue Nov 29 21:14:08
2011
@@ -88,6 +88,11 @@ enum enctype {
*/
#define DEFAULT_MAX_FORWARDS-1
+typedef struct proxy_balancer
The XML interface for the balancer manager has, admittedly, lagged
behind...
Anyone have cycles and/or talent to bring it up to snuff? If not,
I'll try to muddle thru it ;)
Hi all,
I am currently getting this when attempting to build trunk:
Undefined symbols:
_ap_proxy_retry_worker, referenced from:
_find_best_byrequests in
libmod_lbmethod_byrequests.a(mod_lbmethod_byrequests.o)
_find_best_hb in libmod_lbmethod_heartbeat.a(mod_lbmethod_heartbeat.o)
On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The XML interface for the balancer manager has, admittedly, lagged
behind...
Anyone have cycles and/or talent to bring it up to snuff? If not,
I'll try to muddle thru it ;)
As I mentioned to Jim at ApacheCon, I have a 2.2 patch for this
On 27 Nov 2011, at 17:14, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Yes, that would be a good idea and I agree with Daniel that we should use a
distinct prefix or format. We currently have around 2700 calls to
*_log_?error in trunk, so a 4-digit number should be ok. Together with for
example AH as prefix for
On 29.11.2011 23:23, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2011, Kaspar Brand wrote:
I have committed the patches in r1207758 (for Apache::Test) and
r1207759 (adjustments to the t/ssl tests).
Nice, works here now. Thanks.
FYI: Torsten pointed out a potential problem with the solution
On 11/30/2011 2:09 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Am 30.11.2011 01:51, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 11/29/2011 5:30 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Currently my scripts produces:
http://people.apache.org/~sf/error-msg-numbers.diff
On 11/30/2011 5:03 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
+trtdcode%{c}a/code/td
+tdActual remote IP-address and port (see the
+modulemod_remoteip/module module)/td/tr
+
I thought we had this discussion... the words actual and effective
are misnomers. Remote peer IP is what you were attempting to
On 30 Nov 2011, at 9:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/30/2011 5:03 AM, minf...@apache.org wrote:
+trtdcode%{c}a/code/td
+tdActual remote IP-address and port (see the
+modulemod_remoteip/module module)/td/tr
+
I thought we had this discussion... the words actual and effective
On Nov 30, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Jim Riggs wrote:
On Nov 30, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The XML interface for the balancer manager has, admittedly, lagged
behind...
Anyone have cycles and/or talent to bring it up to snuff? If not,
I'll try to muddle thru it ;)
As I mentioned
On 30 Nov 2011, at 9:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I'm not suggesting changing the alpha prefix. Just block out
ranges so that any listing of the codes is grouped by module that
emits them.
From my experience, any attempt at grouping some kind of numbering like this
normally results a
On Nov 30, 2011, at 3:23 AM, HyperHacker wrote:
Any reason *not* to use 5 digits?
The extra character, or using hex, seems worth the future flexibility. We want
to be able to assign new codes, rather than reusing old ones, when error
messages change in future versions.
Allocating 50
On 30 Nov 2011, at 1:30 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
The change has been reverted on v2.4, and the following patch gives the API
changes that allow us to fix this in the v2.4 series:
Applied in r 1208822 and backported in r1208824.
Regards,
Graham
--
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Tim Bannister wrote:
On 27 Nov 2011, at 17:14, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
Yes, that would be a good idea and I agree with Daniel that we
should use a distinct prefix or format. We currently have around
2700 calls to *_log_?error in trunk, so a 4-digit number should
On Wednesday 30 November 2011, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 30 Nov 2011, at 9:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I'm not suggesting changing the alpha prefix. Just block out
ranges so that any listing of the codes is grouped by module that
emits them.
From my experience, any attempt at
On 01 Dec 2011, at 1:28 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
I guess before we commit this to 2.4, all other pending backports
should be done.
Speaking for myself, all my backports are done.
Regards,
Graham
--
24 matches
Mail list logo
