https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48826
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Jung 2010-02-27 22:21:26
UTC ---
I assume there are not other info, warn or error log messages directly around
those cited. In this case I only found two possible reasons, both detected in
ajp_process_callback():
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
> Apache Tomcat Connectors 1.2.30 is:
>
> [ X ] Stable - no major issues, no regressions
> [ ] Beta - at least one significant issue -- tell us what it is
> [ ] Alpha - multiple significant issues -- tell us what they are
I don't test with II
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48826
--- Comment #4 from Bruce G. Stewart 2010-02-27 21:21:30
UTC ---
This one works for all the cases I had available to throw at it, with any of
the three tomcat apr processors.
Thanks so much for fixing this so quickly.
The only oddity I
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48813
Ramiro Pereira de Magalhaes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25055|0 |1
is obsolete
On 02/27/2010 04:16 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 27.02.2010 15:54, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 02/27/2010 03:24 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
I just made an notice on tomcat index.html
Should be enough thought.
I'll also add the same notice to README.html files
inside binaries/
Shouldn't we also remove the
On 27.02.2010 15:54, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 02/27/2010 03:24 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
I just made an notice on tomcat index.html
Should be enough thought.
I'll also add the same notice to README.html files
inside binaries/
Shouldn't we also remove the 29 files form dist and archive?
Once when
On 02/27/2010 03:24 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
I just made an notice on tomcat index.html
Should be enough thought.
I'll also add the same notice to README.html files
inside binaries/
Shouldn't we also remove the 29 files form dist and archive?
Once when the vote is done.
I'd rather see it repl
On 27.02.2010 15:16, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 02/27/2010 02:28 PM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2010/2/27 Mladen Turk:
+1
If withdrawing needs a vote, here is my +1.
It does. Same as for release.
It's been only a day since announced, so as soon
we remove it and release 1.2.30 with fix we'll
make
On 02/27/2010 02:28 PM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2010/2/27 Mladen Turk:
+1
If withdrawing needs a vote, here is my +1.
It does. Same as for release.
It's been only a day since announced, so as soon
we remove it and release 1.2.30 with fix we'll
make less users angry.
Announcement can be
2010/2/27 Mladen Turk :
> +1
>
>>
>> If withdrawing needs a vote, here is my +1.
>>
> It does. Same as for release.
> It's been only a day since announced, so as soon
> we remove it and release 1.2.30 with fix we'll
> make less users angry.
Announcement can be sent faster than any testing for RC c
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Feb 27 13:25:58 2010
New Revision: 916952
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916952&view=rev
Log:
Add 1.2.29 IIS notice
Modified:
tomcat/site/trunk/docs/index.html
tomcat/site/trunk/xdocs/index.xml
Modified: tomcat/site/trunk/docs/index.html
URL:
http://svn.ap
2010/2/24 jean-frederic clere :
> The candidates binaries are available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~jfclere/tomcat-6/v6.0.25/
>
> According to the release process, the 6.0.25 tag is:
> [x] Broken
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48827
Showstopper.
By the way: I have not a
On 27.02.2010 13:02, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2010/2/27:
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Feb 27 10:16:14 2010
New Revision: 916938
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916938&view=rev
Log:
Revert withdrawal notice. Seems this requires a vote
If withdrawing needs a vote, here is my +1.
+1
--
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48827
--- Comment #1 from Konstantin Kolinko 2010-02-27
13:11:12 UTC ---
Created an attachment (id=25066)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25066)
emptyTagWithAttribute_Jsp.jsp
The same page in plain JSP syntax. It work
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48827
Summary: Error validating empty tag that contains jsp:attribute
in JSP documents in XML syntax
Product: Tomcat 6
Version: 6.0.24
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48826
--- Comment #3 from Mladen Turk 2010-02-27 12:15:58 UTC ---
Use the version from
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/tomcat-connectors/jk/binaries/win64/jk-1.2.30/
That contains a fixed version
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.or
+1
On 02/27/2010 01:02 PM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2010/2/27:
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Feb 27 10:16:14 2010
New Revision: 916938
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916938&view=rev
Log:
Revert withdrawal notice. Seems this requires a vote
If withdrawing needs a vote, here is my +1.
It
2010/2/27 :
> Author: mturk
> Date: Sat Feb 27 10:16:14 2010
> New Revision: 916938
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916938&view=rev
> Log:
> Revert withdrawal notice. Seems this requires a vote
>
If withdrawing needs a vote, here is my +1.
Best regards,
Konstantin Kolinko
--
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project tomcat-trunk has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
On 24/02/2010 10:56, jean-frederic clere wrote:
The candidates binaries are available here:
http://people.apache.org/~jfclere/tomcat-6/v6.0.25/
According to the release process, the 6.0.25 tag is:
[ ] Broken
[ ] Alpha
[ ] Beta
[X] Stable
PGP signatures all match
Key in web of trust
.exe instal
Hi,
We have one serious bug with 1.2.29 that causes IIS to
crash on POST request.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48826
Other web connectors are not affected by that bug
Please test the provided release so we can replace the
existing 1.2.29 ASAP.
http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Feb 27 10:36:05 2010
New Revision: 916939
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916939&view=rev
Log:
Tag 1.2.30
Added:
tomcat/jk/tags/JK_1_2_30/
- copied from r916938, tomcat/jk/trunk/
-
To uns
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Feb 27 10:16:14 2010
New Revision: 916938
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916938&view=rev
Log:
Revert withdrawal notice. Seems this requires a vote
Modified:
tomcat/jk/trunk/xdocs/index.xml
tomcat/jk/trunk/xdocs/news/20100101.xml
Modified: tomcat/jk/trunk/xd
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Feb 27 09:51:52 2010
New Revision: 916934
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916934&view=rev
Log:
Add a withdrawn notice
Modified:
tomcat/jk/trunk/xdocs/news/20100101.xml
Modified: tomcat/jk/trunk/xdocs/news/20100101.xml
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/jk
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Feb 27 09:42:19 2010
New Revision: 916933
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916933&view=rev
Log:
Remove references to the bogus 1.2.29
Modified:
tomcat/jk/trunk/xdocs/index.xml
tomcat/jk/trunk/xdocs/news/20100101.xml
Modified: tomcat/jk/trunk/xdocs/index.xml
U
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Feb 27 09:04:31 2010
New Revision: 916931
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916931&view=rev
Log:
Prepare for a tag
Modified:
tomcat/jk/trunk/native/common/jk_version.h
Modified: tomcat/jk/trunk/native/common/jk_version.h
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/j
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48826
--- Comment #2 from Mladen Turk 2010-02-27 08:51:59 UTC ---
Created an attachment (id=25064)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25064)
1.2.30-dev for x64
Could you confirm this version is OK before I tag 1.2.30
I ha
Hi,
We have a bug with IIS/1.2.29 which makes it unusable and it
crashes the IIS.
I'll tag the 1.2.30 and make immediate vote/release because
it's a serious regression.
I suppose we would need to withdraw 1.2.29 as well
Regards
--
^TM
---
Author: mturk
Date: Sat Feb 27 08:42:34 2010
New Revision: 916928
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=916928&view=rev
Log:
Fix BZ48826. We did not set Content-Lenght header name, only value which causes
core caused by unset pointer
Modified:
tomcat/jk/trunk/native/iis/jk_isapi_plugin.c
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48826
--- Comment #1 from Mladen Turk 2010-02-27 08:26:44 UTC ---
Right I can confirm the regression.
We'll withdraw 1.2.29 and immediately release 1.2.30
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
---
30 matches
Mail list logo