On 20/01/2011 16:38, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> On 01/20/2011 05:09 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> The memory leak in the Tomcat 7 NIO connector [1] got back-ported to
>> 6.0.x and included in 6.0.30. [2]
>>
>> I have proposed the fix for 6.0.x. Given the severity I think we need to
>> approve the bac
>> What about the following issue as well: ?
>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50620
>
> Sure. I was about to look at that when the memory leak stuff kicked off.
> Then I got distracted applying all the approved patches in the status file.
>
>> There is a patch available.
>
> Gr
On 20/01/2011 18:04, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2011/1/20 Mark Thomas :
>> The memory leak in the Tomcat 7 NIO connector [1] got back-ported to
>> 6.0.x and included in 6.0.30. [2]
>>
>> I have proposed the fix for 6.0.x. Given the severity I think we need to
>> approve the backport and start a 6.
2011/1/20 Mark Thomas :
> The memory leak in the Tomcat 7 NIO connector [1] got back-ported to
> 6.0.x and included in 6.0.30. [2]
>
> I have proposed the fix for 6.0.x. Given the severity I think we need to
> approve the backport and start a 6.0.31 release asap.
>
+1
What about the following iss
On 01/20/2011 05:09 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
The memory leak in the Tomcat 7 NIO connector [1] got back-ported to
6.0.x and included in 6.0.30. [2]
I have proposed the fix for 6.0.x. Given the severity I think we need to
approve the backport and start a 6.0.31 release asap.
+1
Cheers
Jean-Fred
+1
On 1/20/2011 9:09 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
The memory leak in the Tomcat 7 NIO connector [1] got back-ported to
6.0.x and included in 6.0.30. [2]
I have proposed the fix for 6.0.x. Given the severity I think we need to
approve the backport and start a 6.0.31 release asap.
Mark
[1] http://s
The memory leak in the Tomcat 7 NIO connector [1] got back-ported to
6.0.x and included in 6.0.30. [2]
I have proposed the fix for 6.0.x. Given the severity I think we need to
approve the backport and start a 6.0.31 release asap.
Mark
[1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1050