You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by ni...@apache.org on 2007/10/03 00:06:52 UTC
svn commit: r581408 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS
Author: niq
Date: Tue Oct 2 15:06:52 2007
New Revision: 581408
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=581408&view=rev
Log:
Propose, vote, comment
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=581408&r1=581407&r2=581408&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/STATUS Tue Oct 2 15:06:52 2007
@@ -167,10 +167,8 @@
Backport version for 2.2.x of patch:
Trunk version of patch works
+1: jim, rpluem
- -1: niq: Due to PR#43519, this will generate 403s and lots of
- new pollution in the error log!
- jim asks: Huh? I can't recreate this... If true, then OPTIONS
- is seriously hosed.
+ niq says: -1 while we have PR#43519; +1 contingent on a fix
+ to that being backported.
* core log.c: Authored and Reviewed by both rplume and wrowe within
the same 10 minutes, share only a single apr_file_t/fd between the
@@ -231,6 +229,7 @@
+0: rpluem says: Please give struct foo a meaningful name first.
-0: jim says: Agree with rpluem. Actually, I'd veto this patch
based simply on that naming if I could.
+ niq: changed the name. Resisted temptation to use "pooltabletime".
* mod_proxy_http: Remove Warning headers with wrong date
PR 16138
@@ -239,11 +238,13 @@
+0: rpluem says: Please give struct foo a meaningful name first.
-0: jim says: Agree with rpluem. Actually, I'd veto this patch
based simply on that naming if I could.
+ niq: changed the name. Resisted temptation to use "pooltabletime".
- * mod_authz_host: Accept OPTIONS * without reference to filesystem
- PR 43519
- Trunk: n/a (LATER)
- 2.2.x: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20902
+ * mod_proxy: Don't by default violate RFC2616 by setting
+ Max-Forwards when the client didn't send it to us.
+ PR 16137
+ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=581117 (code)
+ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=581253 (docs)
+1: niq
PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE STALLED