# Nginx-1.0.12 **URL:** \ **Category:** NGINX\ **Created:** [February 6, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-1-0-12/216492 "2012-02-06T15:48:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![luislavena](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/0ea827/32.png) [@luislavena](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/luislavena)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-1-0-12/216492/1 "2012-02-06T15:48:43Z")
Changes with nginx 1.0.12 06 Feb 2012 ``` *) Feature: the "TLSv1.1" and "TLSv1.2" parameters of the "ssl_protocols" directive. *) Feature: the "if" SSI command supports captures in regular expressions. *) Bugfix: the "if" SSI command did not work inside the "block" ``` command. ``` *) Bugfix: in AIO error handling on FreeBSD. *) Bugfix: in the OpenSSL library initialization. *) Bugfix: the "worker_cpu_affinity" directive might not work. *) Bugfix: the "limit_conn_log_level" and "limit_req_log_level" directives might not work. *) Bugfix: the "read_ahead" directive might not work combined with "try_files" and "open_file_cache". *) Bugfix: the "proxy_cache_use_stale" directive with "error" ``` parameter did not return answer from cache if there were no live upstreams. ``` *) Bugfix: a segmentation fault might occur in a worker process if ``` small time was used in the “inactive” parameter of the “proxy\_cache\_path” directive. ``` *) Bugfix: responses from cache might hang. *) Bugfix: in error handling while connecting to a backend. Thanks to Piotr S.. *) Bugfix: in the "epoll" event method. Thanks to Yichun Z.. *) Bugfix: the $sent_http_cache_control variable might contain a ``` wrong value if the “expires” directive was used. Thanks to Yichun Z… ``` *) Bugfix: the "limit_rate" directive did not allow to use full throughput, even if limit value was very high. *) Bugfix: the "sendfile_max_chunk" directive did not work, if the "limit_rate" directive was used. *) Bugfix: nginx could not be built on Solaris; the bug had appeared ``` in 1.0.11. ``` *) Bugfix: in the ngx_http_scgi_module. *) Bugfix: in the ngx_http_mp4_module. ``` Maxim D. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-1-0-12/216492/2 "2012-02-06T18:33:28Z")
Hello Nginx U.s, Now available: Nginx 1.0.12 For Windowshttp://goo.gl/vcXmb (32-bit and 64-bit versions) These versions are to support legacy users who are already using Cygwin based builds of Nginx. Officially supported native Windows binaries are at [nginx.org](http://nginx.org). ## Thank you, Kevin Kevin W. kworthington \*@~ #gmail} [dot) {com] > **[Kevin Worthington](https://kevinworthington.com/)** > > Practical Tech Guides, Troubleshooting, and Insights on the Modern Internet ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-1-0-12/216492/3 "2012-02-06T19:16:22Z")
On 6 February 2012 17:47, Maxim D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Changes with nginx 1.0.12 06 Feb 2012 > > \*) Feature: the “TLSv1.1” and “TLSv1.2” parameters of the > “ssl\_protocols” directive. > > \*) Feature: the “if” SSI command supports captures in regular > expressions. I was really hoping this feature from the 1.1.11 release would make it into the next stable release (1.0.12) \*) Feature: the “proxy\_redirect” directive supports variables in the first parameter. Looks like it didn’t make the cut. Any chance of making the next release? The current limitation of variables to only the second parameter makes this feature a bit cumbersome. Because of a number of backend apps that try to redirect, I have to do: # proxy\_redirect http://site\_1:8080/ http://site\_1/; # proxy\_redirect http://site\_2:8080/ http://site\_2/; # proxy\_redirect http://site\_3:8080/ http://site\_3/; … # proxy\_redirect http://site\_n:8080/ http://site\_n/; in my proxy params file instead of a simple: # proxy\_redirect http://:8080$host/http://$host/; Please consider adding it. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-1-0-12/216492/4 "2012-02-06T20:56:44Z")
On 2/6/12 2:37 PM, Valentin V. Bartenev wrote: > > > > […] > > If you need some feature from the development branch, then why not just use it? Or wait about 5 weeks until 1.1 is “stable” (not that it isn’t stable now). See [http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/roadmap](http://trac.nginx.org/nginx/roadmap). – Jim O. ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-1-0-12/216492/5 "2012-02-06T20:37:57Z")
On Monday 06 February 2012 22:15:10 Nginx U. wrote: > I was really hoping this feature from the 1.1.11 release would make it > into the next stable release (1.0.12) > > \*) Feature: the “proxy\_redirect” directive supports variables in the > first parameter. > > Looks like it didn’t make the cut. Any chance of making the next > release? The current limitation of variables to only the second > parameter makes this feature a bit cumbersome. […] If you need some feature from the development branch, then why not just use it? wbr, Valentin V. Bartenev ---
**Author:** ![Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Maxim\_D](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Maxim_D)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:15am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/nginx-1-0-12/216492/6 "2012-02-07T05:15:47Z")
On 6 February 2012 22:37, Valentin V. Bartenev [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > If you need some feature from the development branch, then why not just use it? > I realise that the dev branch is rated OK for production but prefer to > stay with the other because I don’t want to break things. I hope this feature makes it into 1.0.13 due in four weeks as I’ll need some time to evaluate the 1.1.x branch before deciding whether to move to it even if it does become stable. Cheers