ok, patches are committed

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

The patches are committed, although someone may want to be sure I didn't
screw anything up more than I already noticed...

Randy, you volunteered to roll the tarball, right?

I think we are about ready to roll and put it up somewhere for testing.
Hmm... how about we name it something different (eg. kewl_virus.tar.gz)
when it is put up for testing?  That should help reduce the chances of
people picking it up when they shouldn't.

After that, we are close to ready for release.  Please verify that it
works right.

Re: ok, patches are committed

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

That's fine, I just wanted to be sure we didn't need it in 1.2.  Ok looks
good.  So I'll start posting what I have against 1.3 on tues or weds
depending on my workload. 

Dean

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:

> Your http_vhost was one, but that is 1.3 only.
> 
> The strlen(palloc(...)) length one was another, but that is fixed and
> wasn't a problem normally anyway.
> 
> Can't think of any others and I would prefer to leave them out.  Unless
> something else would cause problems...
> 
> 
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> > Do we need the ap_snprintf len == 0 patch in 1.2?  ISTR a few cases where
> > len == 0 was a possibility but I forget if that's 1.2 or 1.3 code. 
> > 
> > Dean
> > 
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > 
> > > The patches are committed, although someone may want to be sure I didn't
> > > screw anything up more than I already noticed...
> > > 
> > > Randy, you volunteered to roll the tarball, right?
> > > 
> > > I think we are about ready to roll and put it up somewhere for testing.
> > > Hmm... how about we name it something different (eg. kewl_virus.tar.gz)
> > > when it is put up for testing?  That should help reduce the chances of
> > > people picking it up when they shouldn't.
> > > 
> > > After that, we are close to ready for release.  Please verify that it
> > > works right.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 

Re: ok, patches are committed

[Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>]

Your http_vhost was one, but that is 1.3 only.

The strlen(palloc(...)) length one was another, but that is fixed and
wasn't a problem normally anyway.

Can't think of any others and I would prefer to leave them out.  Unless
something else would cause problems...


On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> Do we need the ap_snprintf len == 0 patch in 1.2?  ISTR a few cases where
> len == 0 was a possibility but I forget if that's 1.2 or 1.3 code. 
> 
> Dean
> 
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> > The patches are committed, although someone may want to be sure I didn't
> > screw anything up more than I already noticed...
> > 
> > Randy, you volunteered to roll the tarball, right?
> > 
> > I think we are about ready to roll and put it up somewhere for testing.
> > Hmm... how about we name it something different (eg. kewl_virus.tar.gz)
> > when it is put up for testing?  That should help reduce the chances of
> > people picking it up when they shouldn't.
> > 
> > After that, we are close to ready for release.  Please verify that it
> > works right.
> > 
> > 
> 

Re: ok, patches are committed

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

Do we need the ap_snprintf len == 0 patch in 1.2?  ISTR a few cases where
len == 0 was a possibility but I forget if that's 1.2 or 1.3 code. 

Dean

On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:

> The patches are committed, although someone may want to be sure I didn't
> screw anything up more than I already noticed...
> 
> Randy, you volunteered to roll the tarball, right?
> 
> I think we are about ready to roll and put it up somewhere for testing.
> Hmm... how about we name it something different (eg. kewl_virus.tar.gz)
> when it is put up for testing?  That should help reduce the chances of
> people picking it up when they shouldn't.
> 
> After that, we are close to ready for release.  Please verify that it
> works right.
> 
>