svn commit: r660750 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS

[rp...@apache.org]

Author: rpluem
Date: Tue May 27 15:27:02 2008
New Revision: 660750

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=660750&view=rev
Log:
* Promote

Modified:
    httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS

Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS?rev=660750&r1=660749&r2=660750&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Tue May 27 15:27:02 2008
@@ -94,6 +94,22 @@
 PATCHES ACCEPTED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
   [ start all new proposals below, under PATCHES PROPOSED. ]
 
+ * suexec: When group is given as a numeric gid, validate it by looking up
+   the actual group name such that the name can be used in log entries.
+   PR 7862 [<y-koga apache.or.jp>, Leif W <warp-9.9 usa.net>]
+   Trunk version of patch:
+       http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=655711
+   Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
+       Trunk version works
+  +1: fielding, jim, rpluem
+  jim says: the use of atoi to generate the ?ID is
+      consistent with what we do elsewhere but troubling...
+      we need to find a better way to do this. In particular,
+      ?ids cannot, iirc, be signed - this is more a note to
+      self ;)
+  Roy replies: the patch adds an id lookup and replaces the atoi id
+      with the validated result.  Invalid input will now error out.
+
 PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
   [ New proposals should be added at the end of the list ]
 
@@ -143,22 +159,6 @@
    again I ask myself how we can be sure that the chroot function is actually
    present on the platform we compile.
 
- * suexec: When group is given as a numeric gid, validate it by looking up
-   the actual group name such that the name can be used in log entries.
-   PR 7862 [<y-koga apache.or.jp>, Leif W <warp-9.9 usa.net>]
-   Trunk version of patch:
-       http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=655711
-   Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
-       Trunk version works
-  +1: fielding, jim, rpluem
-  jim says: the use of atoi to generate the ?ID is
-      consistent with what we do elsewhere but troubling...
-      we need to find a better way to do this. In particular,
-      ?ids cannot, iirc, be signed - this is more a note to
-      self ;)
-  Roy replies: the patch adds an id lookup and replaces the atoi id
-      with the validated result.  Invalid input will now error out.
-
  * mod_rewrite: Allow Cookie option to set secure and HttpOnly flags.
    PR 44799
    Trunk version of patch: