I have not been able to reproduce this… Anyone else?
On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Let me reproduce...
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
Should we set some deadline? I can
Let me reproduce...
On Oct 5, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> Should we set some deadline? I can RM if need be.
>>
>> Currently doing tests as users reported a regression on parent
>> caching
>
>
> The setup
>
- Original Message -
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > Should we set some deadline? I can RM if need be.
>
> Currently doing tests as users reported a regression on parent
> caching
The setup
/opt/ats-3.0.x/ -- The proxy
listening on port 80
records.
- Original Message -
> Should we set some deadline? I can RM if need be.
Currently doing tests as users reported a regression on parent caching
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > Gone as far as I can on STATUS…
> >
> > On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:20 AM, Jim Jagielski wro
Should we set some deadline? I can RM if need be.
On Oct 3, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Gone as far as I can on STATUS…
>
> On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:20 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> Will look today… Not sure if I'll have time to do the actual
>> commits but will be able to at least fi
Gone as far as I can on STATUS…
On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:20 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Will look today… Not sure if I'll have time to do the actual
> commits but will be able to at least finish testing and voting…
>
> On Sep 29, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> just a sof
Will look today… Not sure if I'll have time to do the actual
commits but will be able to at least finish testing and voting…
On Sep 29, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> just a soft reminder that there's still a couple of issues
> that are easy fixes but need your vote
>
> i
Hey guys,
just a soft reminder that there's still a couple of issues
that are easy fixes but need your vote
i
--
Igor Galić
Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 883
Mail: i.ga...@brainsware.org
URL: http://brainsware.org/
GPG: 571B 8B8A FC97 266D BDA3 EF6F 43AD 80A4 5779 3257
That's silly… We *know* that endp and p are char* (and
to the same object) and so any comparison is allowed without
any weird casts…
The real fix is:
if (endp < p)
On Sep 25, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> for sure… mixing pointers and ints is Do N
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 26.09.2011 01:30, Igor Galić wrote:
> Does that include 3.0.1 or
According to the user: yes (again: I couldn't neither verify nor test
that). Summarizing from IRC (quoted without permission, hence I replaced
the name):
Did you now find a problem
- Original Message -
> for sure… mixing pointers and ints is Do Not Do In C 101.
> Tracking the full issue…
Here's how we deal with that on trunk:
@@ -1863,7 +1861,7 @@
c->freeall();
p = (char *) DOUBLE_ALIGN(p);
#ifdef PURIFY
-if ((unsigned int) endp < (unsigned int) p)
- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> On 23.09.2011 17:52, Igor Galić wrote:
> > in a long time to do so now. Please cast your votes or concerns
> > for the remaining.
>
> First, 3.0.x as of right now builds fine on my Debian box. However I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
On 23.09.2011 17:52, Igor Galić wrote:
> in a long time to do so now. Please cast your votes or concerns
> for the remaining.
First, 3.0.x as of right now builds fine on my Debian box. However I
noticed a non critical issue. Regressions checks
for sure… mixing pointers and ints is Do Not Do In C 101.
Tracking the full issue…
On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:15 AM, Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
> The first is 64 bits on most systems an the latter is 32 bits on all
> (supported) systems.
>
> --
> Theo Schlossnagle (mobile)
> http://omniti.com/is/theo-
The first is 64 bits on most systems an the latter is 32 bits on all
(supported) systems.
--
Theo Schlossnagle (mobile)
http://omniti.com/is/theo-schlossnagle
On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:10 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Weird…
>
>ClusterHandler.cc:1866: error: cast from 'char*' to 'unsigned int'
Weird…
ClusterHandler.cc:1866: error: cast from 'char*' to 'unsigned int'
loses precision
trying to recreate here… will find and fix :)
On Sep 23, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> Votes cast; patched promoted and committed :)
>
> Thank you j
- Original Message -
> Votes cast; patched promoted and committed :)
Thank you jim!
...and something went wrong:-/
20:56:41 < tserver-bot> build #13 of tserver-branch3.0.x is complete: Failure
[failed compile_2] Build details are at
http://ci.apache.org/builders/tserver-branch3.0.x
Votes cast; patched promoted and committed :)
On Sep 23, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm planning to tag 3.0.2 by Tuesday (Sept 27th, 2011), so I
> kindly asked everybody who hasn't looked at 3.0.x' STATUS file
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/trafficserver/traf
Hi folks,
I'm planning to tag 3.0.2 by Tuesday (Sept 27th, 2011), so I
kindly asked everybody who hasn't looked at 3.0.x' STATUS file
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/trafficserver/traffic/branches/3.0.x/STATUS
in a long time to do so now. Please cast your votes or concerns
for the remaining.
19 matches
Mail list logo
