Re: [users@httpd] RE: [ANNOUNCE] Apache HTTP Server 2.4.29 Released

Actually, that was in APR-util 1.6.1, see the APR release announcement and Craig's users@httpd post. On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Craig Young wrote: > I’m not sure if this is what is referred to in the Apache 2.4.29 > announcement, but please note that the Apache

Re: apr "the latest available version"

On 10/25/2017 06:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > it is *not* helpful when you already have deployed httpd 2.4.29 that you > by random luck face a apr-1.6.3 build on the fedora buildserver I'd suggest you post this to d...@apr.apache.org if you want them to update their dist page. With regards,

Re: mod_rewrite, vary headers and internal redirects

Hi Ruediger, the following patch (still to be carefully tested and/or improved) should force RewriteCond to behave like an block adding the Vary header simply if the condition is evaluated (so header value present in the request but not satisfying the condition or header completely absent):

Re: [Proposal] 2.5.x -> 2.6.0/3.0.0 transition guidelines

> On Oct 25, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Eric Covener wrote: > >> The guidelines are fine with me and seem to make sense to get to an API >> stable next GA. It is good to have a list of 'To Do's' that needs to be done >> before next GA. That helps people looking for interesting and

Re: svn commit: r1813167 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c

The only reasons we keep those factors as ints rather than floats are: 1. We can't change the struct fields in 2.4.x 2. The rationale that int based operations will "always" be faster than floating point 2.5.0 doesn't suffer from #1. We can break API/ABI if there's a good reason. And #2

Re: [Proposal] 2.5.x -> 2.6.0/3.0.0 transition guidelines

> The guidelines are fine with me and seem to make sense to get to an API > stable next GA. It is good to have a list of 'To Do's' that needs to be done > before next GA. That helps people looking for interesting and useful work to > spend their time :-). > Once it is decided that the API is

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

Are there anything of "value" in any of those branches? If not, prune away! > On Oct 24, 2017, at 9:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: >> >> Can

Re: Thoughts on 2.5.0

> On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:20 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On 10/24/2017 11:45 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> That is way when we backport we transition to RTC, because >>> we want to ENSURE it's

apr "the latest available version"

it is *not* helpful when you already have deployed httpd 2.4.29 that you by random luck face a apr-1.6.3 build on the fedora buildserver (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=989222) either this stuff on top should be removed completly or properly updated, if it's not there at

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

To be clear: "delete" simply means "no longer seen in HEAD". This is version control. The data cannot truly be deleted, so it can always be revived. Or reviewed. On Oct 25, 2017 12:31, "Marion & Christophe JAILLET" < christophe.jail...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > Just to mention that before giving a

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

+1 Le 24/10/2017 à 23:05, William A Rowe Jr a écrit : On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: Can someone clean up the not needed

Re: svn commit: r1813167 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk: CHANGES modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c modules/proxy/mod_proxy_balancer.c

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > As you said, the external representation as a float is syntactic sugar. > But the patch breaks that. Someone enters in, for example, 2.50 > and what's displayed in 250, instead of 2.50. > > Since all this is normalized by

Re: Pruning working branches (Was: Re: Why?)

Am 24.10.2017 um 23:05 schrieb William A Rowe Jr: On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:11 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Steffen wrote: On Tuesday 24/10/2017 at 10:26, Steffen wrote: Can someone clean up the not needed anymore

AW: [Proposal] 2.5.x -> 2.6.0/3.0.0 transition guidelines

> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Oktober 2017 19:00 > An: httpd > Betreff: [Proposal] 2.5.x -> 2.6.0/3.0.0 transition guidelines > > I'd like to propose the following, so we can decide on