durusmail: quixote-users: Re: Resolved! Was Re: Re: Problem with using quixote.server.medusa vs. standalone medusa
async HTTP server included?
2004-01-06
2004-01-06
Re: async HTTP server included?
2004-01-06
2004-01-06
async HTTP server included?
2004-01-06
Re: async HTTP server included?
2004-01-06
async HTTP server included?
2004-01-07
Re: async HTTP server included?
2004-01-07
2004-01-07
2004-01-07
2004-01-07
Re: Licensing
2004-01-07
2004-01-07
2004-01-07
Pipelining the async HTTP server
2004-01-07
Re: Pipelining the async HTTP server
2004-01-07
2004-01-07
2004-01-08
Re: Pipelining the async HTTP server
2004-01-08
2004-01-08
2004-01-08
2004-01-08
quixote.server.medusa (Re: Pipelining the async HTTP server)
2004-01-08
quixote.server.medusa
2004-01-08
2004-01-12
Re: quixote.server.medusa (Re: Pipelining the async HTTP server)
2004-01-13
Problem with using quixote.server.medusa vs. standalone medusa
2004-01-14
Re: Problem with using quixote.server.medusa vs. standalone medusa
2004-01-14
Resolved! Was Re: [Quixote-users] Re: Problem with using quixote.server.medusa vs. standalone medusa
2004-01-14
Re: Resolved! Was Re: Re: Problem with using quixote.server.medusa vs. standalone medusa
2004-01-14
Pipelining the async HTTP server
2004-01-08
2004-01-08
Re: Pipelining the async HTTP server
2004-01-08
2004-01-08
2004-01-06
Re: async HTTP server included?
2004-01-06
Re: Resolved! Was Re: Re: Problem with using quixote.server.medusa vs. standalone medusa
Graham Fawcett
2004-01-14
O. Moskalenko wrote:

> After I ran diff over both patched quixote sources I found out that I
> did not extract and apply Graham's patch correctly. In my tree all the
> newlines, carret returns, and tabs had forward slashes. As did a couple
> of regexes, which wouldn't be a good thing, would it? That was the only
> difference. My apologies for littering the list.

All's well that ends well! I'm glad you found the problem.

-- G



reply