On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>
>> I am not completely sure if the 'Full Example' in
>> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/mod_dav.html
>> is 100% correct. Should not the two Require directives be wrapped by
>> container as long as seems to be the
>> default?
I think
It is required, because you don't know what else is in the global
configuration outside this example, so it's good to be explicit.
On Mar 3, 2016 3:06 AM, "Petr Gajdos" wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:53:33AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > That example predates the directive, so, yeah, there's
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:53:33AM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote:
> That example predates the directive, so, yeah, there's a good
> chance it's wrong. Did you try it?
Yes, see the test flow attached.
So in case is missing, file can be created by everyone,
even if this should be forbidden if I unders
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> That example predates the directive, so, yeah, there's a good
> chance it's wrong. Did you try it?
IIUC this should behave the same as 2.2 without any extra config
sections. The LimitExcpet is a new config section and is not merged
but replace
That example predates the directive, so, yeah, there's a good
chance it's wrong. Did you try it?
On Feb 29, 2016 06:25, "Yann Ylavic" wrote:
> Hello Petr,
>
> you should probably not email me directly to get better/contradictory
> answers...
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Petr Gajdos wro
Hello Petr,
you should probably not email me directly to get better/contradictory answers...
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Petr Gajdos wrote:
> Hello Yann,
>
> I am not completely sure if the 'Full Example' in
> https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/mod_dav.html
> is 100% correct. Should n
