On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>...
> Though this issue also hits 1.7, it doesn't seem like this is
> something that can be backported easily (with all the recent changes
> to ra_serf), does it? Unless a specific ("quick") fix is made for 1.7?
A backport won't be possible.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> My intent is to replace the code you quoted with something basically
>> like: handler->server_error = alloc(). The core response handler will
>> then start processing the body as an
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On May 7, 2012 8:16 PM, "Lieven Govaerts" wrote:
>>...
>> The problem is in ra_serf/util.c svn_ra_serf__handle_xml_parser:
>>
>> if (sl.code == 404 && ctx->ignore_errors == FALSE)
>> {
>> add_done_item(ctx);
>>
>> err = svn_ra_
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On May 7, 2012 8:16 PM, "Lieven Govaerts" wrote:
> >...
> > The problem is in ra_serf/util.c svn_ra_serf__handle_xml_parser:
> >
> > if (sl.code == 404 && ctx->ignore_errors == FALSE)
> > {
> > add_done_item(ctx);
> >
> > err
On May 7, 2012 8:16 PM, "Lieven Govaerts" wrote:
>...
> The problem is in ra_serf/util.c svn_ra_serf__handle_xml_parser:
>
> if (sl.code == 404 && ctx->ignore_errors == FALSE)
> {
> add_done_item(ctx);
>
> err = svn_ra_serf__handle_server_error(request, response, pool);
>
>
Johan,
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Johan Corveleyn
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Philip Martin
> > wrote:
> >> Johan Corveleyn writes:
> >>
> >>> I don't know what Surf-Shield does. Its description says: "Can det
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Philip Martin
>> wrote:
>>> Johan Corveleyn writes:
>>>
I don't know what Surf-Shield does. Its description says: "Can detect
exploit
Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 15:46:38 +0200:
> On 11.04.2012 13:52, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 13:43:57 +0200:
> >> If anyone has any suggestions on capturing network traffic on
> >> localhost on Windows XP ... I'm all ears.
> >>
> >> Maybe
On 11.04.2012 13:52, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 13:43:57 +0200:
>> If anyone has any suggestions on capturing network traffic on
>> localhost on Windows XP ... I'm all ears.
>>
>> Maybe the easiest thing to do is to set up Apache on a second machine,
>> so
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 13:43:57 +0200:
> If anyone has any suggestions on capturing network traffic on
> localhost on Windows XP ... I'm all ears.
>
> Maybe the easiest thing to do is to set up Apache on a second machine,
> so I don't have to go over the loopback device ...
Johan Corveleyn writes:
> Maybe the easiest thing to do is to set up Apache on a second machine,
> so I don't have to go over the loopback device ...
You would have to mount the test directory on both machines. The client
side is responsible for repository creation, the server side is
responsib
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn writes:
>
>> I don't know what Surf-Shield does. Its description says: "Can detect
>> exploit sites and other complex online threats". There is some more
>> explanation on the AVG website, but it's still pretty vague [2]. Ma
Johan Corveleyn writes:
> I don't know what Surf-Shield does. Its description says: "Can detect
> exploit sites and other complex online threats". There is some more
> explanation on the AVG website, but it's still pretty vague [2]. Maybe
> it does some throttling of requests/responses, inspectin
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:13:36 +0200:
> If there is anything I can do to provide more info, or try other
> things, let me know ...
Does it depend on the FS backend in use?
14 matches
Mail list logo
