Another regression regarding byteranges

["Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" <ru...@vodafone.com>]

PR 51748 (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51748) is an IMHO valid regression
in range behaviour (from the report):

Request and response sample in each versions.
===== version 2.2.20
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Range: bytes=-1

HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
Server: Apache/2.2.20 (Unix)
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 2
Content-Range: bytes 0-1/10240
Content-Type: text/html

===== version 2.2.19
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost
Range: bytes=-1

HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content
Server: Apache/2.2.19 (Unix)
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 1
Content-Range: bytes 10239-10239/10240
Content-Type: text/html
=====



I already fixed that in trunk.
I think this regression justifies another release for 2.2.x. But IMHO we should wait at least until
mid next week to see if other regressions come thru and hit them all with a 2.2.21.

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: Another regression regarding byteranges

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

On 9/1/2011 7:51 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> 
> On 1 Sep 2011, at 13:33, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>>> I already fixed that in trunk.
>>> I think this regression justifies another release for 2.2.x. But IMHO we should wait at least until
>>> mid next week to see if other regressions come thru and hit them all with a 2.2.21.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
> 
> Ok - so this makes it sound we really should get the advisory out. Shall I update it with some caveats and stay tuned - but still make it FINAL ?
> 
> Or should we make this an update - and not declare final victory ?

+1

An /update/ with patch pointers (the patches themselves being moving
targets as we find these bugs) and to point out the feedback mechanism
(request before and after patch request and response headers as
examples and especially what patch level as documented in the patch)
should do just fine as an update, and we should presume there are
more bugs hiding in this code.

Now that 2.2.20 was published, I see little reason to track this as
a wiki page; bugzilla is probably sufficient now.

Re: Another regression regarding byteranges

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>]

On 1 Sep 2011, at 13:33, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> 
> On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
>> I already fixed that in trunk.
>> I think this regression justifies another release for 2.2.x. But IMHO we should wait at least until
>> mid next week to see if other regressions come thru and hit them all with a 2.2.21.
>> 
> 
> +1
> 

Ok - so this makes it sound we really should get the advisory out. Shall I update it with some caveats and stay tuned - but still make it FINAL ?

Or should we make this an update - and not declare final victory ?

Dw.

Re: Another regression regarding byteranges

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Sep 1, 2011, at 6:31 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
> I already fixed that in trunk.
> I think this regression justifies another release for 2.2.x. But IMHO we should wait at least until
> mid next week to see if other regressions come thru and hit them all with a 2.2.21.
> 

+1