On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:48 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>...
> Can you at least then give a quick review on this approach for a more proper
> fix? I've not tested it ... just trying to see if I can grok your new
> magical XML handling stuff (which is pretty sweet, by the way!)
Thanks.
Your pa
On 06/20/2012 02:32 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 02:24 PM, gst...@apache.org wrote:
>>> + /* If we are talking to an old server, then the sha1-checksum property
>>> + will not exist. In our property parsing code, we don'
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 02:24 PM, gst...@apache.org wrote:
>> + /* If we are talking to an old server, then the sha1-checksum property
>> + will not exist. In our property parsing code, we don't bother to
>> + check the element which woul
On 06/20/2012 02:24 PM, gst...@apache.org wrote:
> + /* If we are talking to an old server, then the sha1-checksum property
> + will not exist. In our property parsing code, we don't bother to
> + check the element which would indicate a 404. That section
> + needs to name the 404'd p
4 matches
Mail list logo
