You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 1998/06/11 05:45:29 UTC
[STATUS] (apache-1.2) Wed Jun 10 23:45:28 EDT 1998
The main goal for 1.2.7 is stability.
Dean is pretty much accepted as the release manager for this branch.
Current Modes:
o Commit-Then-Review (see <http://dev.apache.org/guidelines.html#ctr>
o NO lazy voting
Committed since 1.2.6:
Available:
* Marc's "headers too big" patch, repost it please?
* Wilfredo Sanchez's port to Rhapsody 5.1
<19...@scv2.apple.com>
Needs patch:
* Some fix for the bogus byte ranges bug.
* fix os_escape_path()
Re: [STATUS] (apache-1.2) Wed Jun 10 23:45:28 EDT 1998
Posted by Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>.
<Ke...@Golux.Com> wrote:
>Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>>
>> Me three. I'd say there's no pressing need to release 1.2.7, but let's
>> keep the tree around a few more months just in case. I think Ken's
>> auto-post of the 1.2 status could probably be terminated.
>
>Done.
>
>#ken P-)}
Just a suggestion...
In similar automation I've liked the trick of sending
either the entire mail or a note:
"No changes since last post: See http:..." for full text.
It has the advantage of reminding people of the lack
of change. - ben
"Give a stone before advice"
Re: [STATUS] (apache-1.2) Wed Jun 10 23:45:28 EDT 1998
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> Me three. I'd say there's no pressing need to release 1.2.7, but let's
> keep the tree around a few more months just in case. I think Ken's
> auto-post of the 1.2 status could probably be terminated.
Done.
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
Re: [STATUS] (apache-1.2) Wed Jun 10 23:45:28 EDT 1998
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@hyperreal.org>.
At 08:07 PM 6/11/98 -0600, Marc Slemko wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:
>
>> If the microsoft proxy bug (can't remember the PR off the top of my head)
>> turns out to be a protocol problem, then yes I think a 1.2.7 is worth it.
>>
>> At the moment I'm tempted to ignore that bug though. Microsoft's proxy is
>> broken in my opinion, and if they forgot to test it with the web server
>> w/50% market share... well, they deserve the unreliability they get.
>
>I am tempted to ignore their bug too (if that is indeed their bug) because
>IIS does the same thing that Apache does.
Me three. I'd say there's no pressing need to release 1.2.7, but let's
keep the tree around a few more months just in case. I think Ken's
auto-post of the 1.2 status could probably be terminated.
Brian
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
pure chewing satisfaction brian@apache.org
brian@hyperreal.org
Re: [STATUS] (apache-1.2) Wed Jun 10 23:45:28 EDT 1998
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> If the microsoft proxy bug (can't remember the PR off the top of my head)
> turns out to be a protocol problem, then yes I think a 1.2.7 is worth it.
>
> At the moment I'm tempted to ignore that bug though. Microsoft's proxy is
> broken in my opinion, and if they forgot to test it with the web server
> w/50% market share... well, they deserve the unreliability they get.
I am tempted to ignore their bug too (if that is indeed their bug) because
IIS does the same thing that Apache does.
marcs@valis:/var/mail$ telnet www.microsoft.com 80
Trying 207.68.156.49...
Connected to www.microsoft.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET /misc/features.htm HTTP/1.0
Connection: Keep-Alive
Host: www.microsoft.com
If-Modified-Since: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 23:28:39 GMT
HTTP/1.1 304 Not Modified
Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 02:02:06 GMT
Connection: keep-alive
ETag: "7095a198b8dbd1:35e14"
[keeps the connection open]
Not doing persistent connections for cache validation way sucks,
especially with pipelining. Yes, we can of course do another lame
client-is-broken hack for a particular client. Zeus does not appear to
support persistent connections on any request without a response body,
which sucks.
I am not, however, convinced that this is a general condition unless they
are using some mongrol beta version of the software. There are an
unfortunate number of MS proxys out there and surely someone else would
have whined before this. Unless they just think it is supposed to be
slow.
Re: [STATUS] (apache-1.2) Wed Jun 10 23:45:28 EDT 1998
Posted by Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>.
If the microsoft proxy bug (can't remember the PR off the top of my head)
turns out to be a protocol problem, then yes I think a 1.2.7 is worth it.
At the moment I'm tempted to ignore that bug though. Microsoft's proxy is
broken in my opinion, and if they forgot to test it with the web server
w/50% market share... well, they deserve the unreliability they get.
The bug is that Apache will keep a persistent connection when it sends a
304 response (and it'll say "Connection: keep-alive" if it was a 1.0
client). Which is fine, 304 responses have no body, and so the body
length is known to the client. HTTP/1.1 clients definately handle this.
Netscape Navigator definately handles this. Microsoft's proxy appears to
get confused -- it doesn't recognize that the connection is kept-alive
even though the headers say it. So it sits there twiddling its thumbs
waiting for the server's keepalive timeout.
Dean
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 11:45:29PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > The main goal for 1.2.7 is stability.
>
> IS there still going to be a 1.2.7? With a 1.3.x version out, it may
> be time to retire this tree.
>
> --
> Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
> "Tandems are good if you need hardware which sucks reliably, 24x365."
> -- Malcolm Ray.
>
Re: [STATUS] (apache-1.2) Wed Jun 10 23:45:28 EDT 1998
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Wed, Jun 10, 1998 at 11:45:29PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> The main goal for 1.2.7 is stability.
IS there still going to be a 1.2.7? With a 1.3.x version out, it may
be time to retire this tree.
--
Manoj Kasichainula - manojk at io dot com - http://www.io.com/~manojk/
"Tandems are good if you need hardware which sucks reliably, 24x365."
-- Malcolm Ray.