Any undocumented showstoppers on 2.0.56?

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

... that would prevent me from rolling early tomorrow?  Please raise
hands now, and lets see if we can't get them committed.  I'm thinking
of patches-to-apply, not new efforts :)  There's always 2.0.57 for
new and exciting bug fixes.

Bill

Re: Standard MSIE tweaks for Apache

[Joost de Heer <jo...@sanguis.xs4all.nl>]

> IE is still a pretty popular browser, it's relatively important to 
> handle it well ;)

Shouldn't that read: "IE is still a pretty popular browser, it's relatively 
important that it handles things well."?

Joost

Standard MSIE tweaks for Apache

[Bjørn Stabell <bj...@exoweb.net>]

After switching to Apache 2.2.1 (the unreleased version) we found MS  
IE could no longer access our site (which has keepalive, mod_deflate,  
mod_proxy, and mod_ssl).  At first I thought it was a keepalive or  
cipher problem, but it turned out to be a problem with IE (6.0) not  
being able to handle compressed (mod_deflate) files other than text/ 
html.  Does this ring a bell?

We're now using the following "IE hacks":

#
# IE hacks
# - IE 1-4 cannot handle keepalive w/ SSL, and doesn't do HTTP 1.1 well
# - all IE has problems with compression of non-html stuff (like css  
and js),
#   also make sure we vary on User-Agent if we do conditional  
compression
#
BrowserMatch "MSIE" ssl-unclean-shutdown gzip-only-text/html
BrowserMatch "MSIE [1-4]" nokeepalive downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0
SetEnvIfNoCase Request_URI \.(?:js|css)$        vary-user-agent
Header append Vary User-Agent env=vary-user-agent
[...]

AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/plain text/html text/xml text/ 
xhtml text/javascript application/x-javascript application/xhtml+xml  
application/xml text/css



So, my questions are:

1) Anything missing from the above config?

2) Shouldn't there be a standard "IE hacks" configuration for  
Apache?  Maybe even a "mod_ie_hacks"?

3) Instead of matching on .js and .css in the URI, it would be great  
to have something more robust; is there any way to do this?  (Based  
on content-type, or based on the fact that the content would've been  
compressed but wasn't because of some env variable was set.)

IE is still a pretty popular browser, it's relatively important to  
handle it well ;)


Rgds,
Bjorn

Re: Any undocumented showstoppers on 2.0.56?

[Alexander Lazic <al...@none.at>]

On Fre 14.04.2006 15:12, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>... that would prevent me from rolling early tomorrow?  Please raise
>hands now, and lets see if we can't get them committed.  I'm thinking
>of patches-to-apply, not new efforts :) There's always 2.0.57 for new
>and exciting bug fixes.

Is this a showstopper?

slow child_init causes MaxClients warning
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39275

And/or thread:

Bug in 2.0.56-dev

Regards

Alex

Re: Any undocumented showstoppers on 2.0.56?

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> 
> On 04/15/2006 12:12 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
>>... that would prevent me from rolling early tomorrow?  Please raise
>>hands now, and lets see if we can't get them committed.  I'm thinking
>>of patches-to-apply, not new efforts :)  There's always 2.0.57 for
>>new and exciting bug fixes.
> 
> 
> No ones from my side. Do we still intend to announce 2.0.56 and 2.2.2
> at the same point of time?

We can, in my own self-interest I'd like 2.0.56 to be voted up or down by
Tuesday, but if we wait a day or three to announce to resync with 2.2.2,
that would be fine by me.

Re: Any undocumented showstoppers on 2.0.56?

[Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>]

On 04/15/2006 12:12 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> ... that would prevent me from rolling early tomorrow?  Please raise
> hands now, and lets see if we can't get them committed.  I'm thinking
> of patches-to-apply, not new efforts :)  There's always 2.0.57 for
> new and exciting bug fixes.

No ones from my side. Do we still intend to announce 2.0.56 and 2.2.2
at the same point of time?

Regards

Rüdiger