+1
On Jul 9, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> The gzip plugin has received a lot of field testing.
> Many of our users and developers have been using it in
> production under various versions of ATS.
>
> It's high time we promote it!
>
> --
> Igor Galić
>
> Tel: +43 (0) 664 886 22 8
fixed
-Bryan
On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:50 AM, Igor Galić wrote:
>> diff --git a/proxy/http/HttpSM.cc b/proxy/http/HttpSM.cc
>> index 8035b38..aebdd89 100644
>> --- a/proxy/http/HttpSM.cc
>> +++ b/proxy/http/HttpSM.cc
>> @@ -3285,6 +3285,11 @@ HttpSM::tunnel_handler_post_ua(int event,
>> HttpTunnelP
Where can I find the TSMLoc or TSMBuffer structure?
???
Thank you
Réjean Bouchard
Nexweb
When you close a bug in Jira, for whatever reason, please make sure it has
the correct "Fix Version". Here are the basic guidelines:
1. If closed with a "Fixed" on master, make sure it's the current dev
version (right now, v3.3.5 as an example)
2. If closed as invalid/won'tfix/duplicate, remo
On 7/12/13 1:26 PM, Réjean Bouchard wrote:
Where can I find the TSMLoc or TSMBuffer structure?
These are opaque structs, that plugins should not mess with. The underlying
data can also vary depending on what the TSMLoc is for. You'd have to
backtrack all the way back to the type (e.g. HDR_HE
On 7/12/13 1:50 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
1. If closed with a "Fixed" on master, make sure it's the current dev
version (right now, v3.3.5 as an example)
2. If closed as invalid/won'tfix/duplicate, remove the Fix Version entirely.
3. When the bug is a backport, make sure it's targeted for the c
After some feedback from the Denver Barcap, I've left
the vote open for what must now be more than a week,
but we still only have our three votes.
is anyone who's actively using 3.2.x still doing tests?
Do you *want* a new 3.2.x release? Or are you all looking
for a stable 3.4.x?
i
- Origin
I'm in the process of rolling out 3.2.4 but I'm really waiting for a 3.4
release. Also, this probably isn't the thread for this but I think our
stable releases could get more attention in terms of backports if the
process was slightly easier, i'll start a new discussion on this as it's
something th
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> After some feedback from the Denver Barcap, I've left
> the vote open for what must now be more than a week,
> but we still only have our three votes.
>
> is anyone who's actively using 3.2.x still doing tests?
> Do you *want* a new 3.2.x rel
We've modeled our backporting closely to httpd's, apr's and subversion's
Of those three, subversion at least has automated that a great deal:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/tools/dev/svn-merge-revs.py
of course this doesn't quite map to our current, jpeach inspired process;)
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 08:50:40PM +, Igor Galić wrote:
>
> is anyone who's actively using 3.2.x still doing tests?
Sorry, it's vacation time here.. so I haven't had time to build/test it.
> Do you *want* a new 3.2.x release? Or are you all looking
> for a stable 3.4.x?
I don't know if we'
11 matches
Mail list logo
