Re: Status for 2.4.20

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Nick Edwards wrote: > So after a thread stop message, why do you feel you need to troll bait them? > It's clear they both agreed to ignore each other, it's been clear one party > had no intention on keeping his word (having had myriad of

Re: Status for 2.4.20

So after a thread stop message, why do you feel you need to troll bait them? It's clear they both agreed to ignore each other, it's been clear one party had no intention on keeping his word (having had myriad of clashes with the fool reindl myself on other lists I'm not at all surprised he

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:49 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > FULL STOP. Really, NOW, simply don't talk to each other here (this way at least, but anyway is fine too since it seems hopeless). You are able to block each other on your respective networks, well, keep reading

Re: Status for 2.4.20

FULL STOP. The next person to demand the last word of this thread will be iptables deleted from existence at a.o. Can you all appreciate that ~2000 people have to read all of your pissing contests? This is simply not acceptable. Be done with it.

Re: Status for 2.4.20

your short memory returns again, thank you, as that terminates any and all prior agreements we had about (not) responding to each other and your diatribe, the flood gates have now opened. But as for this post, so it seems I did, I probably stopped reading half way, my care factor isnt all

Re: Status for 2.4.20

which I didnt you did Weitergeleitete Nachricht Betreff: Re: Status for 2.4.20 Datum: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 21:58:18 +1000 Von: Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> Antwort an: dev@httpd.apache.org An: dev@httpd.apache.org as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain pe

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On 29/03/2016 01:06, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > @Everyone on this thread - keep it civil. > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > >

Re: Status for 2.4.20

+1 Thanks! > Am 28.03.2016 um 17:06 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > @Everyone on this thread - keep it civil. > >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote: >>> On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote: >>> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM,

Re: Status for 2.4.20

@Everyone on this thread - keep it civil. On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote: > >> On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler wrote: >> >> as stated previously, this shit will happen when

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On 26/03/2016 22:54, Reindl Harald wrote: *yawn* grow up! especially with your off-list hate-mails while block responses off-list hate mails? The message was pretty clear you emailed me asking me never to reply to any of your posts some time ago, I emailed you reminding you that works

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On 3/23/2016 7:27 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Release Often is hardly a Bad Thing, at least IMHO. When the > time is right for a release, then we release. It seemed a > good time, again IMHO. Kinda late to the party, but shouldn't what's committed to a stable branch _always_ be ready to release?

Re: Status for 2.4.20

Am 26.03.2016 um 04:44 schrieb Noel Butler: On 26/03/2016 13:32, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 26.03.2016 um 04:13 schrieb Noel Butler: On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote: On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler wrote: as stated previously, this shit will happen

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On 26/03/2016 13:32, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 26.03.2016 um 04:13 schrieb Noel Butler: On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote: On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler wrote: as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a release often

Re: Status for 2.4.20

Am 26.03.2016 um 04:13 schrieb Noel Butler: On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote: On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler wrote: as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a release often mentality AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On 25/03/2016 19:52, Graham Leggett wrote: On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler wrote: as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a release often mentality AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On 23 Mar 2016, at 1:58 PM, Noel Butler wrote: > as stated previously, this shit will happen when certain people push with a > release often mentality > > AFAIK there is *ZERO* critical exploit bugs to be patched by any pending > release, so lets get house in order S

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On 23/03/2016 22:27, Jim Jagielski wrote: I see your point and have no intent or desire to flame. Release Often is hardly a Bad Thing, at least IMHO. When the time is right for a release, then we release. It seemed a good time, again IMHO. My opinion that "this shit will happen" when,

Re: mod_http2 on Windows (was: Re: Status for 2.4.20)

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:16:17 > -0500): > >> > http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/master/r454ae8a/logs/make-ts-windows-vc14-x64-r454ae8a.html > > > >It's been a *long* time,

Re: mod_http2 on Windows (was: Re: Status for 2.4.20)

William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:16:17 -0500): >> http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/master/r454ae8a/logs/make-ts-windows-vc14-x64-r454ae8a.html > >It's been a *long* time, and I know it hadn't been that well maintained >for non-Linux (non-BSD) target

Re: mod_http2 on Windows (was: Re: Status for 2.4.20)

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:40 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >> Not to talk about they very personal conception of sizeof(long) on >> 64bit systems... > > You might be too young to remember when

Re: mod_http2 on Windows (was: Re: Status for 2.4.20)

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > >> nghttp2_session.c(160) : warning C4996: 'vsnprintf': This function or > >> variable may be unsafe. Consider using vsnprintf_s instead. To disable > >> deprecation, use _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS. > > [sarcasm] >

Re: mod_http2 on Windows (was: Re: Status for 2.4.20)

>> nghttp2_session.c(160) : warning C4996: 'vsnprintf': This function or >> variable may be unsafe. Consider using vsnprintf_s instead. To disable >> deprecation, use _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS. [sarcasm] Microsoft being unable to provide a safe vsnprintf() in the first place and now warning every

Re: mod_http2 on Windows (was: Re: Status for 2.4.20)

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:58:45 > -0500): > >Precisely, Jan. We don't know where these truncation errors lead - do > they > >portentially open security holes? They cetainly

Re: mod_http2 on Windows (was: Re: Status for 2.4.20)

William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:58:45 -0500): >Precisely, Jan. We don't know where these truncation errors lead - do they >portentially open security holes? They cetainly interefere with serving >huge resources such as .iso images. > >When I first tripped over

mod_http2 on Windows (was: Re: Status for 2.4.20)

On Mar 23, 2016 22:19, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote: > > William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:00:19 > -0500): > >On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 7:42 AM, William A Rowe Jr > >wrote: > > > >> Again, a C89 regression breaking the candidate, but

Re: Status for 2.4.20

Tell you what. Let's delay for 1 week and I'll take up a T on Monday April 4th.

Re: Status for 2.4.20

William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:00:19 -0500): >On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 7:42 AM, William A Rowe Jr >wrote: > >> Again, a C89 regression breaking the candidate, but in an experimental >> module that we don't promise will always build. nghttp2

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 7:42 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > branches/2.4.x/modules/http2/h2_filter.c > > Again, a C89 regression breaking the candidate, but in an experimental > module that we don't promise will always build. nghttp2 is filled with C99 > code, AIUI - due

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On Mar 23, 2016 6:23 AM, "Steffen" wrote: > > Just did a export; > > Diff with the vote 2.4.19 one: > > branches/2.4.x/modules/cache/mod_socache_shmcb.c Correct. I'm not claiming this is win32-specific, it only happens to show up on that and other edge cases. >

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Let's see: I recalled the vote for 2.4.19 because of a > single issue, basically related to a missing few lines in > a file which prevented building on Win. Nice, easy, simple > fix. > > Now it appears that a slew of

Re: Status for 2.4.20

> On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On 23/03/2016 20:56, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Let's see: I recalled the vote for 2.4.19 because of a >> single issue, basically related to a missing few lines in >> a file which prevented building on Win. Nice, easy,

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On 23/03/2016 20:56, Jim Jagielski wrote: Let's see: I recalled the vote for 2.4.19 because of a single issue, basically related to a missing few lines in a file which prevented building on Win. Nice, easy, simple fix. Now it appears that a slew of "fixes" related to Win have been applied

Re: Status for 2.4.20

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Steffen wrote: > Just did a export; > > Diff with the vote 2.4.19 one: > > branches/2.4.x/modules/cache/mod_socache_shmcb.c > branches/2.4.x/modules/http2/h2_filter.c > branches/2.4.x/modules/http2/mod_http2.dsp > > For remove

Re: Status for 2.4.20

Just did a export; Diff with the vote 2.4.19 one: branches/2.4.x/modules/cache/mod_socache_shmcb.c branches/2.4.x/modules/http2/h2_filter.c branches/2.4.x/modules/http2/mod_http2.dsp For remove mod_lbmethod-rr: branches/2.4.x/Makefile.win branches/2.4.x/Readme.cmake branches/2.4.x/Apache.dsw

Re: Status for 2.4.20

> Am 23.03.2016 um 11:56 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > Let's see: I recalled the vote for 2.4.19 because of a > single issue, basically related to a missing few lines in > a file which prevented building on Win. Nice, easy, simple > fix. > > Now it appears that a slew of "fixes"