Jim Gallacher wrote:
> The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing.
Something about the mod_python.util changes has either exposed a bug in
Trac, or introduced a bug into mod_python - I'm not sure which yet.
3.2.x r416547 with r393781 reverted works fine for me
3.2.x r416548 seems t
+1 FreeBSD 6.1p2 / Python 2.4.3 / Apache 2.2.2
On 6/23/06, Nicolas Lehuen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 Windows XP SP2, ActivePython 2.4.3, Apache 2.0.58
Regards,
Nicolas
2006/6/23, Jim Gallacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, this time for real. :)
>
> The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is availabl
Update requirements to Apache 2.0.47 or greater
---
Key: MODPYTHON-174
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-174
Project: mod_python
Type: Task
Components: documentation
Versions: 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 3.2.x
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-174?page=all ]
David Fraser updated MODPYTHON-174:
---
Attachment: apache-2.0.47-req-doc.patch
Added patch to update the docs requirement strings
> Update requirements to Apache 2.0.47 or greater
> ---
I've recently been bitten by the Apache 2.0.47 requirement as mentioned
in the following mails:
http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-February/020280.html
http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-May/021135.html
http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-May/021133.ht
Thanks for the patch David. I'll include it for 3.2.9.
Jim
David Fraser wrote:
> I've recently been bitten by the Apache 2.0.47 requirement as mentioned
> in the following mails:
> http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_python/2006-February/020280.html
> http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/mod_pyt
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote:
>> The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing.
>
> Something about the mod_python.util changes has either exposed a bug in
> Trac, or introduced a bug into mod_python - I'm not sure which yet.
>
> 3.2.x r416547 with r393781 reverted works f
Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Jim Gallacher wrote:
>>> The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing.
>> Something about the mod_python.util changes has either exposed a bug in
>> Trac, or introduced a bug into mod_python - I'm not sure which yet.
>>
>> 3.2.x r416547 with
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote:
>> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> Jim Gallacher wrote:
The mod_python 3.2.9-rc2 tarball is available for testing.
>>> Something about the mod_python.util changes has either exposed a bug in
>>> Trac, or introduced a bug into mod_python - I'm not sure which yet
Jim Gallacher wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> The root of the problem is that Trac wants to be able to add extra
>> fields to a FieldStorage itself, and has been jumping through all sorts
>> of crazy hoops in the internals of FieldStorage to make this happen.
>
> Which suggests bad design in either
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Jim Gallacher wrote
>> Since a 3.3 release is at least a few months away, I think we can take
>> our time and give this some careful consideration. Maybe the best plan
>> is to leave FieldStorage as-is for legacy applications and start fresh
>> on a brand new FieldStorageNG cl
>> * How are applications supposed to perform write operations on a
>> FieldStorage, in 3.3 and the future?
>
> Personally I never considered writing to FieldStorage. I always thought
> of it as a read-only representation of a submitted form, but then that's
> just my mental map.
It's a pretty un
12 matches
Mail list logo
