+1 on committing this code ASAP.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Murcko" <chuck@topsail.org>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Tag 1.3.23?
> May I suggest we once and for all put the HTTP 1.1 mod_proxy in after
> letting testers@ beat on it?
>
> It is binary compatible changes (slightly ugly because of the way we
> define the opaque table interface in alloc.c) but is a big improvement
> over the old proxy. The only core code touch is removal of the denial of
> HTTP 1.1 responses in the core.
>
> I have run it here for years now 8^) so I know it is not fundamentally
> flawed.
>
> Chuck
>
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2002, at 12:14 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
> > I am reasonable sure the problem we are seeing with Windows XP is not a
> > bug in Apache. I
> > suspect a buggy layered service provider interacting badly with the
> > Windows
> > DuplicateSocket call.
> >
> > Anyway... anyone object to tagging 1.3.23 (sans any changes that will
> > require a major MMN
> > bump)?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> Chuck Murcko
> Topsail Group
> http://www.topsail.org/
>
|